Posted on 11/01/2002 6:42:37 AM PST by stainlessbanner
The Justices were unanimous that the actions of the so-called seceded states were rebellion and treason. Taney was appointed by Andrew Jackson, after all.
Where the Court split 5-4 was which branch of the government, the legislative or the executive, was the proper agent to put down the rebellion.
But it hardly matters does it? Five is greater than four.
Walt
President Lincoln never declared war on anybody or any entity. As you know, his position was that the states could not, under any circumstances under law, get out of the Union. He always referred to the "so--called seceded states", the "gentlemen who have styled themselves as the legislature of Virginia", and so forth.
But the minority opinion? Who cares about the minority opinion? Five is still greater than four.
Walt
Was this written by one of the Justices that concurred in Dredd Scott?
Dredd Scott, it is often pointed out, is one of the worst decisions in the history of the Court. It was an attempt at social engineering as surely as Rowe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, or any other court case of this century. Dredd Scott said that blacks had no rights white men were bound to honor -- even though -- blacks could vote in five states. Is that good law in your opinion?
Do you accept without cavil this minority opinion in The Prize Cases when the Militia Act clearly says:
"That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed."
You say that every man has a right to interpret the Constituion himself? Is that any less important than interpreting court decisions?
If you didn't have an agenda, you'd surely discount this skewed minority opinion in The Prize Cases.
But five is still greater than four.
Walt
Yikes- talk about an unfunded mandate- since when is funding a research project the purpose of gov't? Why can't we get a tax cut and let interested parties spend their $ on this sort of stuff instead of forcing those who don't give a damn to fund your hobby.
I would agree with you. However, I don't know if this expedition had government funding. Did it?
I'd say that this type of thing is a "nice to have" that we simply, as taxpayers shouldn't be required to underwrite. We have bigger problems.
Walt
Not a one of those was a Supreme Court Justice.
They have the final say as to what is law in this country.
Walt
Gosh, Walt, I don't see any mention of "secession at will," nor any indication that Mr. Rawle "thought it was [illegal] within U.S. law."
No indication?
"In declaring for the right of seccession, Rawle was careful to associate it with the final right of rebellion, enjoyed by all people at all times."
You don't seem a careful reader.
A careful reader wouldn't suggest things that are nonsense.
Walt
WP: Not a one of those was a Supreme Court Justice.
They have the final say as to what is law in this country.
So, when John Taylor asked, ”Is the court supreme over the constitution, or the constitution [that created it] supreme over the court?” - you would insist that the court is indeed supreme over the Constitution.
That, my friend, is not a constitutional republic: it is a judicial junta. You are, of course, welcome to your opinions, no matter how bizarre they may be.
;>)
WIJG: Gosh, Walt, I don't see any mention of "secession at will," nor any indication that Mr. Rawle "thought it was [illegal] within U.S. law."
WP: No indication?
"In declaring for the right of seccession, Rawle was careful to associate it with the final right of rebellion, enjoyed by all people at all times."
You don't seem a careful reader.
A careful reader wouldn't suggest things that are nonsense.
LOL! Quoting the passage by your favorite plagiarist produces no more mention of “secession at will” on the second attempt, than it did on the first. Nor does a simple ‘association’ with the “right of rebellion” indicate that an act is either illegal or unconstitutional. For example, the right of self-defense, as individuals and as societies, is intimately associated with the right of rebellion: as John Locke noted in his Second Treatise on Civil Government (quoting from memory):
”He therefore who may resist, must be allowed to strike.”
Would you suggest that self-defense is somehow “[illegal] within U.S. law,” simply because it is ‘associated’ with the “right of rebellion?” Hmm? How about the right to keep and bear arms – another right quite obviously ‘associated’ with the “right of rebellion.” In your opinion, is the Second Amendment unconstitutional, or “[illegal] within U.S. law,” because it is ‘associated’ with the “right of rebellion?”
Have at it, friend Walt: answer those few simple questions. We enjoy it when you “suggest things that are nonsense” – God knows, we’ve seen you do it often enough...
;>)
Trouble remembering your own posts? You were referring to the Prize Cases “court case,” which in fact “has a decision.” Regardless, thd the Militia Act is a simple act of Congress, and in no way supercedes the Constitution – which nowhere prohibits secession.
;>)
I have often noted that Justice Grier cites the act in his --decision-- on The Prize Cases... So Justice Grier cites a law extant at the time of the secession crisis -- a law extant -decades- prior to the secession crisis, in fact.
So, the decision cites a simple act of Congress, but contains no arguments pro or con regarding the supposed unconstitutionality of secession. How impressive. When you tell us that “(t)he Court ruled that the actions of the so-called seceded states [apparently referring to secession] had no operation in law,” you will find no judicial analysis to support your position in the subject ruling. In fact, the constitutionality of secession was completely irrelevant to the Prize Cases decision: the decision was based upon the existence of a de facto state of war.
We know that the Constitution, and the laws made pursuant thereto are the supreme law of the land.
You know nothing of the sort, if we are to believe your own posts. In Post #148 you insist that “[the Supreme Court Justices] have the final say as to what is law in this country.” Which is the final authority, sport? The Constitution, or the court? The two are not the same – you can not have it both ways.
Just another of the many fatal contradictions inherent in your pseudo-historical argument.
;>)
But there is a requirement that United States law operate in all the states. Shoehorn secession into that.
No “shoehorn” required. As you noted in Post #138 (apparently without believing it yourself, given the contents of Post #148 ;>), “the Constitution, and the laws made pursuant thereto are the supreme law of the land.” The “supreme law of the land” therefore includes the troublesome Tenth Amendment – but nowhere does the “supreme law” include any explicit or necessarily implicit prohibition of secession. 'Shoehorn that into your secession-is-unconstitutional argument'...
;>)
What the Supreme Court -- and James Madison -- have said confirms what I say.
LOL! Let’s look at the operative terms in your ‘cherry-picked’ quotes:
”We may then infer, that the people of the United States intended to bind the several states...”
(An ‘inference’ that in some ways contradicts the specific terms of the Tenth Amendment. How nice. ;>)
”...the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner. By this great compact however, many prerogatives were transferred to the national Government, such as those of making war and peace, contracting alliances, coining money, etc."
(“Many prerogatives...in a certain manner:” hardly a description of the unlimited federal power you advocate, now is it? And Mr. Justice Jay mentions "coining money" - a rather mundane function – but makes no mention of something as important as the formal withdrawal of a State from the federal union. But then, the Constitution makes no mention of secession, either, does it? ;>)
”It must have been the intention of those who gave these powers, to insure, as far as human prudence could insure, their beneficial execution. This could not be done by confining their choice of means to such narrow limits as not to leave it in the power of Congress to adopt any which might be appropriate, and which were conducive to the end...”
(And here we find Mr. Justice Marshall inferring that ‘the end justifies the means.’ No wonder James Madison disparaged Marshall’s opinion... ;>)
And “as to Virginia,” you (quite understandably ;>) ignore the State’s ratification documents, the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, the Report on the Virginia Resolutions of 1800, numerous other official documents reiterating the Virginia Resolutions in subsequent decades, and even the Declaration and Protest on the Principles of the Constitution of the United States of America, and on the Violations of Them [by the Federal Government], penned by Thomas Jefferson for the Virginia legislature in 1825.
The record supports me, not you.
Only if you ignore most of the “record” – which you have consistently and repeatedly done...
The Secesh aimed to maintain the right to own other men through the power of the gun.
LOL! That’s a bit much, coming from someone who just quoted ‘Attorney Dana’ regarding the apparent supremacy of a “line of bayonets” over the specific written words of the Constitution. Especially so, given the fact that almost half of the Confederacy seceded in direct response to Mr. Lincoln’s call for troops to invade the other Southern States! (But then, perhaps the people of the seceding States were familiar with Mr. Madison’s comments during the constitutional convention, regarding the predictable results of the use of federal military force to coerce the States! ;>) And if one considers that the North didn't bother to abolish slavery until after subjugating the people of the Southern States, the stench of your self-righteous hypocrisy becomes down-right nauseating...
;>)
It is obscene to suggest law, morality or right were on their side.
Actually, it is simple historical fact “to suggest law...[was] on their side.” As one professor of history at Harvard University recently noted, “ the proponents of secession had a strong constitutional argument, probably a stronger argument than the nationalists advanced.” And those who believe that ‘the supreme law of the land” is ‘immoral’ are always free to amend it - in the manner specified by the Constitution, not be means of judicial fiat. A disappointment to you, no doubt, but a fact nevertheless...
;>)
But the minority opinion? Who cares about the minority opinion? Five is still greater than four.
In one post you suggest that “the Constitution... [is] the supreme law of the land,” in another you contradict yourself and claim that “[the Supreme Court Justices] have the final say as to what is law in this country” – and now you discard nearly half the justices! Any chance you’ll whittle things down further?
LOL!
;>)
Was this written by one of the Justices that concurred in Dredd Scott?
Dredd Scott, it is often pointed out, is one of the worst decisions in the history of the Court. It was an attempt at social engineering as surely as Rowe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, or any other court case of this century. Dredd Scott said that blacks had no rights white men were bound to honor -- even though -- blacks could vote in five states.
Congratulations! Now you’re discarding the “five” along with the “four,” simply because you disagree with their decision! So much for your (apparently temporary ;>) claim that the high court has “the final say as to what is law in this country!”
LOL!
You're a complete hypocrite, Walt - but always an entertaining hypocrite!
;>)
Justice Grier's opinion in The Prize Cases cites the Militia Act. This act requires that United States law operate in all the states. If you don't think that speaks to the unconstitutionality of secession, you're worse off than I thought.
You spend a lot of time, I suppose, on your posts. Goodness knows why, because there is nothing to them.
Walt
And what were you just telling us about 'Chief Justice Taney's opinion in Dredd Scott?' Was it that “[the Supreme Court Justices] have the final say as to what is law in this country?” Was it that "five is greater than four," referring to your self-proclamed faith in the supposedly inerrant constitutionality of the court's majority opinions? Hmm? Or was it that "Dredd Scott...is one of the worst decisions in the history of the Court. It was an attempt at social engineering...[which] said that blacks had no rights white men were bound to honor -- even though -- blacks could vote in five states?"
The contradictions in your arguments are -- literally -- laughable!
(LOL!!! ;>)
You spend a lot of time, I suppose, on your posts. Goodness knows why, because there is nothing to them.
Allow me to correct you: 'there is nothing in my posts' of interest to you. You have no interest in the specific words of the Constitution, no interest in the process by which it was ratified, no interest in the ratification documents of the States, no interest in the premier legal references of the early Republic, no interest in the official public statements of men like Jefferson and Madison, no interest in the official public documents of numerous State legislatures - and apparently no interest even in Supreme Court decisions with which you disagree. Simply put, you have no interest in anything that contradicts your myopic, pseudo-historical opinions.
But please keep it up, friend Walt - your hypocritical, internally-contradictory posts are quite comical!
;>)
Divers Uncover Secrets of a Confederate Vessel
WTVM | 27 July 2003
Posted on 07/27/2003 7:55:35 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/953604/posts
|
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
|
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
|||
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.
