And it still doesn't apply!!
Well, here's what it says:
"And it be further enacted, 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. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislatures of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."
The 1862 Supreme Court decision on the Prize Cases cites the Militia Axt as modified in 1795.
The Militia Act was passed at the request of President Washington.
Just saying it doesn't apply doesn't make it so.
You might want to consider an adult response.
Walt
I've given you adult responses and you still don't understand them. You use the Act out of context,just as lincoln did. The intent of the Act covered a small section of one state. You seriously cannot believe that when that was written, Washington meant for it to be applied to one half of the nation
Hmm (puts on critical thinking cap) would you not expect the Supreme Court to cite this Act, thus agreeing with it, when the Union government is doing something that's legal only if this act holds up? What, do you think the SCOTUS would say, "Whoa, wait a minute, Abe, we just decided what you're doing is wrong, so apologize, make nice, and stop invading our neighbors to the south?" Could there have been a certain...pressure...to make this judgement?
The Supreme Court is not infallible, and has *gasp* even reversed itself in the past. It, like everything else, is subject to the bias of the people on it, so it is not surprising that a court might decide something that is clearly not in the Constitution, really is. Abortion anyone? Separation of Church and State?
I don't care if you would have happily run off to join the blue bellies, you'd have been on the wrong side just as much as if you'd been among the red coats in 1776.
LTS