[WhiskeyPapa]

Per the Contitution, any federal law prohibiting secession, unilateral or otherwise, must be pursuant to the Constitution. Please post the law in question.

There's not one is there?

Of course there is. It's the Militia Act -- passed on February, 28, 1795.

You must be learning disabled or something because you have seen this quote many times.

The majority ruling in the Prize Cases refers directly to the Act.

"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.

All persons residing within this territory whose property may be used toincrease the revenues of the hostile power are, in this contest, liable to be treated as enemies, though not foreigners. They have cast off their allegianceand made war on their Government, and are none the less enemies because they are traitors."

Why would the Supreme Court refer to the Militia Act -- if it had not been made PURSUANT to the Constitution?

What on God's green earth gives -you- , or anyone else, now or in the 19th century -- the right to decide which laws are made in pursuance to the Constitution? That power, under law, rests exclusively with the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court called the secessionists traitors.

I don't know what helped form your opinions on these issues, but whatever it was was obviously incomplete.

Walt

[4CJ]

Why would the Supreme Court refer to the Militia Act -- if it had not been made PURSUANT to the Constitution?

Then why did the court not just state that secession was illegal per the Militia Act and stop there? IF, and that is a big "if", what you assert about secession is true, why did the court continue and state that the Confederacy's 'right to do so is now being decided by wager of battle.'

[Gianni]

Why would the Supreme Court refer to the Militia Act -- if it had not been made PURSUANT to the Constitution?

What on God's green earth gives -you- , or anyone else, now or in the 19th century -- the right to decide which laws are made in pursuance to the Constitution? That power, under law, rests exclusively with the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court called the secessionists traitors.

What gives a 19th century Supreme Court more credibility than the documents writer, or is it your belief that Madison was happy with the militia act?