No, you are supposed to give a crap about the fact that the Congress cannot override a constitutional law. Neither can a President.
Nothing about any threat to Taney's life and freedom during the Civil War or prior to it. Are you suggesting that they all purposely ignored this salient fact and deliberately omitted it from their books?
I should not be surprised if they did. All the Union apologists ever do is tell the story in such a way as to cast the best light on Lincoln's acts. When they can't justify them, they simply don't report them at all.
After due consideration the administration determined upon the arrest of the Chief Justice. A warrant or order was issued for his arrest. Then arose the question of service. Who should make the arrest and where should the imprisonment be? This was done by the President with instructions to use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders from him.
If that' isn't good enough for you, here is a book written by a former Mayor of Baltimore in which he claims Judge Taney told him he was almost arrested. (Page 90)
And what part of "did not outlaw slavery, either in the rebellious parts or the non-rebellious parts" is unclear to you.
The sentence is clear enough. Were it accurate you might have a point, but since it is not, understanding the words you wrote is irrelevant. Lincoln did in fact outlaw slavery solely on his own authority and in direct contravention of Article IV, Section II, Second Paragraph. The defacto truth is that Lincoln far exceeded his legitimate constitutional powers.
It just wouldn't be a DiogenesLamp post without a helping of manure, would it?
No thanks, I don't need you adding any manure to it. You can keep that stuff for yourself. I have no use for it.
I must have missed the part of the Constitution that proclaims you as the ultimate source for what is Constitutional and what is not. Which clause is that?
Well see, there is where you are mistaken. The constitution was never intended to be a f***ing dictionary, you are expected to be able to speak English and understand the meaning of words when you read it.
I, being a person who can read English and understand the meanings of words in the Constitution, can explain what it means to others who may not be so gifted. That's what I am attempting to do for you, but you are bull headed and don't want to learn anything that contradicts your religion.
But other people can read and understand it too. In fact, most people can.
Of course you wouldn't. You have no shame and have long since lost any remaining shred of what little credibility you ever had to begin with. Never mind the fact that James F. Simon has written seven books on the Supreme Court in general and half a dozen of its justices in particular. Never mind the fact that Walker Lewis wrote his biography 50 years ago. Never mind the fact that none of the three authors I mentioned wrote a single book on the Civil War itself. You, with all your bluster and ignorance, write them off as "Union apologists". You, sir, are a boob. Someone every bit as bigoted and biased in your own way as you accuse others of being. Trying to debate you is a waste of time because you reply to fact with bullsh*t, and respond to logic with inane nonsense.