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

To: WhiskeyPapa
That was never shown at the time

Yes it was. Taney quoted a large ammount of it in his widely circulated Ex Parte Merryman ruling.

as the issue never came before the Supreme Court

That was The Lincoln's obligation, and he failed to do so.

and your interpretation is eclipsed by that of the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

No, not really. He's asserted without evidence and on his own authority that the issue has never been decided. By comparison, the overwhelming bulk of historical records indicate that it was decided without issue from day one when the clause was inserted into the Constitution. Rehnquist can argue for his position all he wants as can you, but no ammount of argument will change the fact that Madison's records show it was indisputably intended for the legislature.

149 posted on 12/23/2002 1:35:57 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies ]


To: GOPcapitalist
and your interpretation is eclipsed by that of the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

No, not really. He's asserted without evidence and on his own authority...

Yeah. Well, he is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That's a bit heavier artillery than you have.

Walt

152 posted on 12/23/2002 1:47:54 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | 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