Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Fraid not. The president had the power to act as per the Militia Act.

Did the states in question no longer have republican governments? Were they invaded? Was this a case of domestic violence? Just wondering.

You don't have to wonder any longer. The Supreme Court said the president had the power to act. Both the majority and the dissenting opinion in the Prize Cases agreed on this.

Walt

1,127 posted on 10/15/2003 9:41:39 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1112 | View Replies ]


To: WhiskeyPapa
You don't have to wonder any longer. The Supreme Court said the president had the power to act. Both the majority and the dissenting opinion in the Prize Cases agreed on this.

Guess again. This is from the majority ruling by Grier:

'By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare war against a State, or any number of States, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States.'

Nothing about the laws not being executed.

From the dissent by Nelson:

'The truth is, this idea of the existence of any necessity for clothing the President with the war power, under the Act of 1795, is simply a monstrous exaggeration; for, besides having the command of the whole of the army and navy, Congress can be assembled within any thirty days, if the safety of the country requires that the war power shall be brought into operation.'

'I am compelled to the conclusion that no civil war existed between this Government and the States in insurrection till recognized by the Act of Congress 13th of July, 1861; that the President does not possess the power under the Constitution to declare war or recognize its existence within the meaning of the law of nations, which carries with it belligerent rights, and thus change the country and all its citizens from a state of peace to a state of war; that this power belongs exclusively to the Congress of the United States and, consequently, that the President had no power to set on foot a blockade under the law of nations.'


1,128 posted on 10/15/2003 10:46:40 AM PDT by 4CJ (Come along chihuahua, I want to hear you say yo quiero taco bell. - Nolu Chan, 28 Jul 2003)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1127 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson