Replies

Lincoln might have had the law on his side. But the laws must be written in accordance with the Constitution. So now we have the Supreme Court ruling on that Militia Act of 1792 some 70 years later. And Justice Grier makes it perfectly clear that neither the Congress nor President had any authority to wage war against a state (remember that the laws of this nation are subservient to the Constitution). Justice Grier did write the majority decision.

Lincoln might have had the law on his side. But the laws must be written in accordance with the Constitution. So now we have the Supreme Court ruling on that Militia Act of 1792 some 70 years later. And Justice Grier makes it perfectly clear that neither the Congress nor President had any authority to wage war against a state (remember that the laws of this nation are subservient to the Constitution). Justice Grier did write the majority decision.

I'm too lazy to scroll back up. Did Griner say the US coudln't wage war? I don't think that's right.

Here's some more from the Prize Cases:

"....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."

Lincoln's actions were definitely within the scope of his authority.

Walt