The 'rough man' from Illinois in 1860.
Posted on 12/10/2002 6:57:25 AM PST by billbears
Interesting notion but if all the States could agree the Constitution would not prevent such an outcome.
Sure it was. Do you even know what an ex parte ruling is, Walt? It's an application for court action where only "the one party" seeking the action participates. Courts can and do issue rulings in cases of this nature, as happened with Merryman.
The whole concept of "nullification" is unconstitutional. It cannot be squared with the line in the Constitution itself, that it is "the supreme Law." The Constitution cannot be "the supreme Law," if it can be overturned by decision of Nebraska, Arkansas, whatever.
The whole concept of passing unconstitutional legislation is unconstitutional. If the Constitution is "the supreme law," then not even the federal government can supercede it. So, then, what is the most logical recourse for a state when the U.S. Congress violates the Constitution? Hope and pray that some day we will have enough conservative justices on the Supreme Court to overturn every unconstitutional passed by Congress throughout our nation's history?
Interesting notion but if all the States could agree the Constitution would not prevent such an outcome.
Yeah it does.
"If all the states, save one, should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power, and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon State rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that one," it would exactly what the seceders claim to do; unless, indeed, they make the point, that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do, what the others because they are a majority may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle, and profound, on the rights of minorities. They are not so partial to that power, which made the Constitution, and speaks from the preamble, calling itself "We the People."
A. Lincoln, 7/4/61
Walt
Sure it was. Do you even know what an ex parte ruling is, Walt? It's an application for court action where only "the one party" seeking the action participates. Courts can and do issue rulings in cases of this nature, as happened with Merryman.
I do know what Ex parte means.
The government did not particpate; Taney didn't invite them to. He was too busy with his agenda of helping the slave power.
Walt
Yes Walt. Roger Taney, the properly seated United States Chief Justice serving on the U.S. Circuit Court at the time. You see, Walt. Under the American judicial system cases typically don't go straight to the Supreme Court first. They start in lower courts and work their way up on appeals. The U.S. Circuit Court is the one right below the Supreme Court, and the loser in cases before the Circuit Court can appeal them to the Supreme Court. The Lincoln did not do so.
There was no case, there was an Ex Parte decision
Ex parte rulings are made on cases, Walt. They happen when one of the parties refuses to appear before the court on a case, and in Merryman the military authorities refused Taney's summons to produce a writ. Try again.
So many interludes and so little time. Mostly interludes with white women, but not entirely. LOL
Wonder what they think about that when you are preaching at the Mayfair Church? LOL
"Particular cases."
Thanks for the cite.
Walt
Ex parte rulings are made on cases, Walt. They happen when one of the parties refuses to appear before the court on a case, and in Merryman the military authorities refused Taney's summons to produce a writ.
The government didn't have to appear, based on the standard then applicable.
Walt
The 'rough man' from Illinois in 1860.
Evidently you do not as your statements indicate a lack of understanding of its nature.
The government did not particpate; Taney didn't invite them to.
Again, you show you have not even the slightest clue as to what you are talking about. Read the Merryman decision, Walt. Taney ruled ex parte because the respondents, the government which was holding Merryman without a writ, refused to recieve Taney's attempts to serve them on the case by way of U.S. Marshall. You can read it in Merryman case itself:
"The clerk issued the writ of attachment as directed. At twelve o'clock, on the 28th May 1861, the chief justice again took his seat on the bench, and called for the marshal's return to the writ of attachment. It was as follows: 'I hereby certify to the Honorable Roger B. Taney, chief justice of the supreme court of the United States, that by virtue of the within writ of attachment, to me directed, on the 27th day of May 1861, I proceeded, on this 28th day of May 1861, to Fort McHenry, for the purpose of serving the said writ. I sent in my name at the outer gate; the messenger returned with the reply, 'that there was no answer to my card,' and therefore, I could not serve the writ, as I was commanded. I was not permitted to enter the gate. So answers Washington Bonifant, U. S. Marshal for the District of Maryland.'"
Hence Taney had to rule ex parte.
But they had no right to simply ignore rulings they did not like and without further appeal within the constitutional judiciary system.
Marbury makes it very clear, Walt - "The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.