[nolu chan]

[669 WhiskeyPapa] Knocking over a bank has always pretty much been known to be illegal.

Defying the lawful order of a circuit court judge has always pretty much been known to be illegal.

You opined that Lincoln's acts were not unlawful because the Supreme Court had not told him of any illegality. The circuit court, in the person of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, did recite the applicable law.

The Supreme Court has not told me robbing banks is illegal. If it works for Lincoln, it ought to work for me.

How about if instead of robbing a bank, I violated some obscure law? Would ignorance of the law be an excuse?

[WhiskeyPapa] Just as legal unilateral state secession has always been barred by the wording of the Constitution, the Militia Act of 1792 as amended in 1795 and the Judicial Act of 1789.

This is an interesting observation, even if it does have nothing to do with anything I have said.

[WhiskeyPapa]

[669 WhiskeyPapa] Knocking over a bank has always pretty much been known to be illegal. Defying the lawful order of a circuit court judge has always pretty much been known to be illegal.

As I have said at least twice now, there was a different perception then. You are making a modern day judgment on an historical person.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Defying the lawful order of a circuit court judge has always pretty much been known to be illegal.

Taney could have gotten the issue before the whole Supreme Court. But as that selection from MHQ that I posted indicated, most of the Justices agreed with the president.

Only a ruling of the Supreme Court could challenge the president on this.

Walt