Mr. Chief Justice TANEY, Mr. Justice CATRON and Mr. Justice CLIFFORD, concurred in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Nelson.
Thank you again Walt. I'm impressed that you consided Taney's opinion worthy of inclusion into the record.
This is a clear attempt on your part to pervert the record.
The court ruled -unanimously- that the government had the right to put down the rebellion, referring to the insurgent area as the "so-called confederate states".
What you quote is the minority opinon on -who- can put down the rebellion, the president, or Congress. The court ruled 5-4 in -favor- of presidential power.
From the syllabus of the cases:
"A civil war exists, and may be prosecuted on the same footing as if those opposing the Government were foreign invaders, whenever the regular course of justice is interrupted by revolt, rebellion, or insurrection, so that the Courts cannot be kept open.
"The present civil war between the United States and the so-called Confederate States has such character and magnitude as to give the United States the same rights and powers which they might exercise in the case of a national or foreign war..."
Not very clever on your part.
Walt
You still have not retracted this ‘whopper’:
”It wasn;t until the slave holders saw their power to control the national government slipping away that the these positions were challenged.”
405 posted on 1/4/02 2:23 AM Pacific by WhiskeyPapa
“Not very clever on your part” – after all, I can quote ratification documents from the late 18th century, I can quote Tucker’s Blackstone’s of 1803, and I can quote Rawle’s View of the Constitution to prove you dead wrong. Perhaps you should see if you can find ‘reverse’ - before you 'get stuck'...
;>)
No it's not. You posted
You put forward Taney in Merryman. Will you honor him in the Prize Cases?I did post Taney's opinion. Do you honestly think that after Lincoln refused to abide by Taney's directive in the Merryman case that any justice would rule against the war - while it's still being waged? Who knows, maybe they were scared that Lincoln would have them arrested and killed.
After secession the Confederacy never attempted to invade the Union, never attempted to overthrow Lincoln or anyone else. They exercised there God-given right to self-government and withdrew peacefully after seceding legally, with their legislative act "proven" according to existing federal laws. Lincoln was hell bent on upholding a perceived duty to maintain the union, while trashing other rights and excersing powers not delegated to him. Why is one important and not the other?
If, as some assert, the Confederacy was leaching off the Union, why not let them go in peace? Wouldn't the remaining union be even stronger without them if that were true? What could possibly justify the deaths of over 620,000 men - more American lives lost than all others wars we ever fought? What fool would sacrifice such a huge percentage of the population just to preserve a union? Would beating the Confederacy and destroying her economically, politically and socially do anything to preserve the union? The founders had expressed such sentiments before, and understood that maintaining the union under such circumstances would be pure insanity. Once defeated, the confederates states were held at gunpoint, their state governments overthrown - that's preserving a republican form of government? That's more preferable than a peaceful disunion? That's a more perfect union? It's totally opposite the very principles that were the basis for the founding of our country - the right to self-government.
Why have a written constitution at all, if any President can pick and choose at will what he wants to do? Why have a separation of powers if the President can ignore the judiciary, or assume the powers of congress? Can you see how the Confederacy could liken him to a tyrant or despot? We rail against the illegal actions of Presidents that we dislike but shouldn't we also rail againt those exact same actions in any other President as well? Why would the founders have written a constitution, and debated it for months, if anyone could pervert or usurp it, and assume powers not delegated any time they wished? Why would the states have debated for months or years before adopting it if they were not afraid of losing powers? Why would Madison draft the Bill of Rights in an attempt to encourage the remaining holdouts to ratify the Constitution? The state conventions of New York and two other states expressly resevered the right to terminate their ratification, and to reassume their powers of self-government, so why did the other states accept their ratification unconditionally? Why accept them if they did not agree? How can a union be permanent, if it allows the admission of new states - doesn't that in itself change the union? If New York or Virginia had not ratified, would the President be justified in waging war on them to force them into the union?