And who has the jurisdiction over deciding if a law is repugnant to the Constituiton? The judiciary, as the Chief Justice stated. Not the states. Not Congress. The courts.
Ex post facto rulings are unconstitutional. That's what Marshall said.
Once again you seem to be unable to grasp the definition of ex post facto. Texas v White was not an ex post facto ruling. The court ruled that unilateral secession had never been legal. It was not, and never had been a power granted to the states.
When Texas seceded, it was not 'illegal'...it was not anything. Making it 'illegal' after the fact IS an ex post facto law, ruling or edict.
The court ruled that it was illegal. It had never been legal. Therefore the ruling was not ex post facto.
ROFLMAO! Which IS an ex post facto ruling.
ROTFLMAO back at you. Rewriting the definition of ex post facto or imagining legality where it didn't exist doesn't make you right. Unilateral secession has never been lawful.
Section 2 follows section 1 for a reason. Legal documents can't say 'A'....oh, I meant 'B'...no, I meant 'A'. Their written in order of applicability. You can't do 'B' without conforming with 'A' first.
Section 2 follows section 1 because 2 is a higher number. Section 1 of the Militia Act concerns invasion by a foreign country or Indian tribe. Section 2 concerns rebellion, as in the case of the southern states in 1861. So in this case then yes, one can say 'B' because that is the applicable section. Or are you saying you can't have rebellion without a foreign country invading first?
I already showed you where both the Constitution and the militia Acts stipulated the State in question must request assistance....but that's not what you want to hear.
No you added one and one and came up with B. Article I gives Congress the right to call up the militia in case of insurrection, like that of the Southern states in 1861. Article IV says that the United States will protect the states from invasion or, if requested, domestic violence. The two are not necessarily related. If the state government part and parcel of the insurrection then Congress is within its powers to act.
Lincoln could 'call out the militia' all he liked, but the clause in questions says the STATE HAS TO REQUEST THE ASSISTENCE, and the President cannot enter a State without that Constitutional stipulation being met.
Complete nonsense. In his August 7, 1794 proclamation and his November 1794 message to Congress, George Washington clearly states that he called out the militia to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion he was acting on the authority granted him under the Militia Act, and not because the governor of Pennsylvania requested it. Lincoln's actions were no different.
(snicker)
Nice to see you're getting with the program. I find your posts funny, too.
Please point out the word REBELLION anywhere in that clause.
And the difference between rebellion and insurrection is?
Odd, I don't remember them marching on Washington D.C.
You never read on Early's raid against D.C. in July 1864? But I digress. The South attacked the federal garrison in Fort Sumter and launched the armed rebellion. Or insurrection. Your choice.
Ahem-
Reports of the violence in western Pennsylvania had already reached the federal government in Philadelphia, where it was also rumored that the rebels were asking representatives of Great Britain and Spain for aid in a frontier-wide separatist movement. Fearing the secession of western territories – and an even greater threat to the nation’s western borders – President Washington ordered Governor Mifflin to send the Pennsylvania militia to enforce the law. But Mifflin declined, asserting that a president in peacetime and in the absence of any local request for help had no authority to direct a state governor to use a state militia for any purpose. In the process, he established a precedent that is still honored today.
Chapter 4: The Whiskey Rebellion
Washington followed both the Militia Act of 1792 (it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state) as well as Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Application of the STATE legislature, not an application of the federal legislature or an arbitrary Presidential decision.
Governor Mifflin set a precedent that still stands today.
No federal authority can lawfully enter a State without the permission OF THE STATE.
That IS the law, and Lincoln ignored it.