Actually they don't. The Constitution 'trumps' as you say ANY law, therefore the 10th Amendment applies over any of your 'perceived' powers that lincoln might have had.
The Supreme Court failed to find such logic compelling when it cited the Militia Act as empowering the president to act, or when they referred to the "So-called Confederate States" as being in rebellion.
Walt
And what you're failing to understand here is that this ruling occurred in '62? What kind of demoralizing statement would that have been to the troops, let alone the entire establishment of the government of the United States? The entire administration would have been run out on a rail. It virtually would have destroyed what little was left of the Constitution. While the Supreme Court decided lincoln had the power to do so(it's a maybe anyway, you know what I think of that sitting of the Court and their decisions), the moral decision would have been for lincoln to call the troops home at that exact point (as if he should have sent them out in the first place). He would have saved face, probably wouldn't have been hung, and maybe not even have been impeached. We would have had two nations that would have quickly become friends, slavery would have been abolished peacefully as it had in the three major empires of the world by 1860 within the next twenty years, oh but of course the US wouldn't have been as rich as it was before the war now would it?
Apparently, this only works because you ignore the fact that the Supreme Court you hold so dear was part of the government those States were trying to leave. If you cannot fathom how that would be an immense conflict of interest, then further discussion with you is pointless. You have the same blind adherence to dogma, no matter how wrong, that propels BATF, FBI, and DEA agents through doors, guns blazing; that drives the IRS to target middle America, ripe for the picking, rather than the wealthy who can afford to defend themselves; that demands absolute loyalty to whomever you deem should be in charge, brokering no dissent. You might not agree with all the policies at DemocratUnderground, but your thought processes would fit in perfectly.
To sum up, this thread is not about slavery, or how proud anyone is about their ancestors. It is about a question that could be important in the near future. I, unlike some, would prefer a peaceful separation should things become too divided, but people like Walt and the "War Settled the Question" crowd seem to crave bloodshed before anything can be resolved. Do you all look forward to killing your neighbors, cousins, or brothers, if they decide to go their own way, all in the name of your precious federal government? That's not "red text" behavior.
LTS
end rant