Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
But I thought you considered anyone who ignored the Constitution a domestic enemy? Since Lincoln ignored the Constitution during his entire presidency, doesn't that make him a domestic enemy by your own reasoning??
Nope, it was still law then. As I've said, ad nauseum, the USSC doesn't make law, it interprets law. It didn't say "well we think it should be illegal, therefore it is". They looked at pre-existing documents (documents which existed before 1861) and said that those documents say that secession is illegal.
Did the documents exist before? Yes. It was always illegal.
Find somewhere where it prohibits secssion and you've won your argument. If not, then your argument is weak. I'll wait while you find it.
Amendment 10
"owers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Supreme Court also said that the constituion supported segregation, until they realized later that it wasn't.
An act isn't legal or illegal in the abstract. It is only legal or illegal in reference to some instrument by which to judge legality. If we are even going to talk about whether secession was legal, that instrument obviously must be the Constitution.
The USSC decides the legality of acts by virtue to that document, and decided in 1869 that states do not have the power to seceed (I am trusting RGS here). That is the law. If you are even going to talk about whether something like secession is "legal" or "illegal" (which is kind of silly b/c it is first and foremost a political act), then one has to accept that in this case, that question has been answered.
Some not unimportant aid, however, in ascertaining the true sense of the Constitution, may, be derived from considering what is the correct idea of a State, apart from any union or confederation with other States. The poverty of language often compels the employment of terms in quite different significations; and of this hardly any example more signal is to be found than in the use of the word we are now considering. It would serve no useful purpose to attempt an enumeration of all the various senses in which it is used. A few only need be noticed.
It describes sometimes a people or community of individuals united more or less closely in political relations, inhabiting temporarily or permanently the same country; often it denotes only the country or territorial region, inhabited by such a community; not unfrequently it is applied to the government under which the people live; at other times it represents the combined idea of people, territory, and government.
It is not difficult to see that in all these senses the primary conception is that of a people or community. The people, in whatever territory dwelling, either temporarily or permanently, and whether organized under a regular government, or united by looser and less definite relations, constitute the state.
This is undoubtedly the fundamental idea upon which the republican institutions of our own country are established. It was stated very clearly by an eminent judge,6 in one of the earliest cases adjudicated by this court, and we are not aware of anything, in any subsequent decision, of a different tenor. [74 U.S. 700, 721] In the Constitution the term state most frequently expresses the combined idea just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A state, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. It is the union of such states, under a common constitution, which forms the distinct and greater political unit, which that Constitution designates as the United States, and makes of the people and states which compose it one people and one country.
The use of the word in this sense hardly requires further remark. In the clauses which impose prohibitions upon the States in respect to the making of treaties, emitting of bills of credit, and laying duties of tonnage, and which guarantee to the States representation in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, are found some instances of this use in the Constitution. Others will occur to every mind.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=74&page=700
I don't need too. The USSC did, and ruled on it. Sorry, you lose. Whether you like there argument or not is irrelevant.
The USSC gets to interpret that, you don't.
Yes, the USSC has been wrong. They might be wrong here. Its irrelevant because we are talking about the legality of something which, right or wrong, the USSC decides.
As RGS said, the courts don't "justify" anything. They decide the legality or illegality of it and what they say is the law, and has been the law (unless they reverse something, which they didn't do here).
If you commit an act that *might* be illegal and the court decides its illegal, you still go to jail.
Find somewhere where it prohibits secssion and you've won your argument. If not, then your argument is weak. I'll wait while you find it.
Amendment 10
"owers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Supreme Court also said that the constituion supported segregation, until they realized later that it wasn't.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/mo...supreme_court_rules_against_individual_gun_r/
So those who argue that annexation is a legally binding contract, isn't the U.S. held to standards when holding up it's end of the bargain. The same logic can be applied to the South during the Civil War.
Nope, it was still law then. As I've said, ad nauseum, the USSC doesn't make law, it interprets law. It didn't say "well we think it should be illegal, therefore it is". They looked at pre-existing documents (documents which existed before 1861) and said that those documents say that secession is illegal.
Did the documents exist before? Yes. It was always illegal.
The 10th Amendment does not prohibit secession, and once a state has seceded, the rest of the provision of the Amendment no longer apply to the seceded state.
RGS,
Just a little history here
ex parte Milligan
On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus throughout the entire United States. Lincoln imposed the suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. The President's proclamation was challenged in ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional.
In arguments before the Court, the counsel for the United States spoke to the question of "what is martial law?" "Martial law," it was argued, "is the will of the commanding officer of an armed force, or of a geographical military department, expressed in time of war within the limits of his military jurisdiction, as necessity demands and prudence dictates, restrained or enlarged by the orders of his military chief, or supreme executive ruler." In other words, martial law is imposed by a local commander on the region he controls, on an as-needed basis. Further, it was argued, "The officer executing martial law is at the same time supreme legislator, supreme judge, and supreme executive. As necessity makes his will the law, he only can define and declare it; and whether or not it is infringed, and of the extent of the infraction, he alone can judge; and his sole order punishes or acquits the alleged offender."
In this case, Lambden Milligan, for whom the case is named, was arrested in Indiana as a Confederate sympathizer. Indiana, like the rest of the United States, was part of a military district set up to help conduct the war. Milligan was tried by military commission and sentenced to die by hanging. After his conviction, Milligan petitioned the Circuit Court for habeas corpus, arguing that his arrest, trial, and conviction were all unconstitutional. What the Supreme Court had to decide, it said, was "Had [the military commission] the legal power and authority to try and punish [Milligan]?"
Resoundingly, the Court said no. The Court stated what is almost painfully obvious: "Martial law ... destroys every guarantee of the Constitution." The Court reminded the reader that such actions were taken by the King of Great Britain, which caused, in part, the Revolution. "Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish."
Did this mean that martial law could never be implemented? No, the Court said. The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it: When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: "If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html
The Supreme Court did not rule this until 1869. Had they ruled in 1859, then you could say that the South committed illegal activity. It is not suprising that a government consisting of a majority of Northerners, would condemn the actions of the SOuth. You mind as well put a black man on trial with an all white Jury. It became law of the Land after 1869, but up until that ruling, there was no ruling. And even after 1869, there was still no provision in the COnstitution that forbade the secession of states.
What's unconstitutional, is the fact that it is not found in the Constitution in place in 1861 when the states left the said Union.
"A state can not leave the Union without the consent of said Union."
That's like saying that tomorrow, the internet is illegal and that everyone that had used the internet before hand was guilty of a crime.
THere was no law forbading the states to secede. There was no law forbading slavery.
Amendment 10 says it all.
It was ok for Texas to do that when it seceded from Mexico. IT was also alright for the colonies to secede from England in the American Revolution. So because the war was actually won, it's justified? I see how this works.
According to the Native Americans, it wasn't ok to just come over and say, "nah...this is my country, not yours."
The secession was not illegal, nor was slavery at the time.
Incorrect. The Constitution does not prohibit secession. The legal precedent set by Texas v White in 1869 does. A legal precedent with nothing tangible as a basis.
You are wrong, go read what Larkinn has said on the matter. Ohh and that is HOW courts work. They determine things AFTER they have occurred. Not before.
Oh yeah...thanks for the quick history lesson. I'm glad your well versed in the law of the land.
The secession was not illegal according to the Constitution, whether you believe so or not. For people who sure like to cite the Constitution on things, you guys sure back into a hole and start harping on something else when the Constitution doesn't swing your way. Secession was not prohibted by the Constitution, therefore, the powers not prohibited by the Constitution were reserved to the state.
Hop in a time-travel pod and head for 1861, look at the Constitution (complete with no Supreme Court ruling) and tell me if it would have been legal in your eyes, considering the Constitution never mentioned any such thing. The Supreme Court has been proven wrong before, and they were in this case.
Hence, the Supreme Court decision was a pile of BS that was made in order to preserve the Union. Like I said, it's like a black man on trial with an all white jury.
Already had this argument. The Constitution is clear, States can not split , can not change forms of Government, can not make treaties or make money or have a whole list of don't does. All clearly imply that a State can not leave the Union with out the permission of said Union. Otherwise the Document is absolutely useless. Since as soon as the federal Government does something a State does not like they just leave. That would invalidate the entire concept of a Union and the entire concept that the federal Government is the Supreme Law of the land.
It establishes that the States have no right within the Constitution to leave the Union without permission. The decision is final until a new decision is made or an amendment is applied to the Constitution invalidating the decision.
Lincoln settled the matter by force of arms prior to the case, so what?
Using your logic if Joe Robber steals your car until he is tried and convicted he committed no crime and his actions were legal until the court ruled on the case. So why again to we get to put people in jail before convicting them? Why do we even get to arrest them? By your logic no crime has been committed.
