Exactly. It'll probably be an excerpt from Jim Epperson on the holy bible of wlatdom - the "moderated civil war newsgroup"
Now that you mention Jim Epperson and the ACW moderated heehaw, remember this?
[Wlat] There is no reasonable interpretation that will say anything but that there is no legal right to unilateral state secession. The judicial power of the United States rests with the Supreme Court. --Every-- Justice agreed in 1863 that the Militia Act gave the power to the president to suprress rebellion. The majority opinion in that case referred to the rebels as traitors. These are the facts of the matter. If you -had- anything of note to say, which you apparently do not, it would be muted by your unsupportable position on this one issue.
This is from Dorr v. Rhode Island:
[long quote]
[nc] Dear Lurkers:
Don't waste your time looking for famous decision Dorr v. Rhode Island, decided unanimously by the Supreme Court in 1863.
[Wlat quoting from the ACW moderated heehaw it seems.]
My error.
"The Supreme Court decision in question is Luther v. Borden, from 1849, resolving a dispute that started in 1841.
* * *
By a vote of 8-1, with Chief Justice Roger Taney writing the majority decision, the Court ruled that Congress alone had the authority to do this, that it was a "political question," and therefore not something for the Court to decide.
* * *
Jim Epperson
Let's see.
Walt wrote authoritatively about a court decision he had not even seen, much less read and understood, but he definitely knew the case citation and that it was unanimous.
He had read about a decision over on his unimpeachable ACW moderated heehaw.
There was no such case as Dorr v. Rhode Island.
There was only one Supreme Court decision in 1863 and that wasn't it.
It was not from 1863, it was from 1849.
- Every - justice agreed: * 8-1 * with CJ Taney writing for the majority.
It was Luther v. Borden, not Dorr v. Rhode Island.
Had Walt so much as looked at the actual decision, he would have seen that it was Luther v. Borden (1849). It was impossible to see a caption of Dorr v. Rhode Island.