Skip to comments.
The Economics of the Civil War
LewRockwell.com ^
| January 13, 2004
| Mark Thornton and Robert Ekelund
Posted on 01/13/2004 9:01:35 AM PST by Aurelius
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560, 561-580, 581-600 ... 1,121-1,131 next last
To: hirn_man
Regarding secession, I think a good case can be made that secession is illegal, as you pointed out. You may be right. Honestly, I need to do more research before I take any further stands on this issue. I have no ax to grind for pro-secession.
561
posted on
01/20/2004 11:51:18 AM PST
by
exmarine
( sic semper tyrannis)
To: Non-Sequitur; GOPcapitalist
[N-S]
No, a lower court may determine constitutionality if the Supreme Court declines to take their ruling under consideration. At that time, the lower court decision is accepted as the opinion of the Supreme Court. No, the lower court (say 2nd Circuit) determines the constitutionality of a law within its own territorial jurisdiction. Such never becomes accepted as the opinion of the Supreme Court by denial of cert. If a court from another jurisdiction (say 9th Circuit) rules differently, the Supreme Court may decide to rule on the issue and resolve it.
When a lower court decision is not appealed to the Supreme Court, or cert is not granted, the lower court decision remains the precedent for that territorial jurisdiction but is not binding as precedent on any other jurisdiction as is a Supreme Court decision.
To: aristeides
I believe the federal government made pleadings in the case. You would be wrong.
To: nolu chan
And your point is?
To: 4ConservativeJustices; WhiskeyPapa
It was the official, legal opinion of the Circuit court in question, and until appealed, is the "law of the land."
No, Merryman was issued by Chief Justice Taney as an in-chambers opinion from the Supreme Court.
To: exmarine
" What business did the founders have to sever their ties to mother England? Why is the authority to sever ties with Britain valid, but not the authority for the south to sever ties with the Union?"
The colonists exercised their "right to revolution"(recognized in the declaration of independence). They took chances. If they had lost treason and the gallows awaited them.
The south could of exercised their "right to revolution", but they chose to exercise some unrecognized "right to secession". Once again read Jackson's proclamation to South Carolina.
When you start a revolution, you get held accountable for losing or if you are lucky you get termed "patriot" by the new country you have formed.
To: Non-Sequitur
[N-S]
Because the Constitution gives the Supreme Court either original or appellate jurisdiction on all cases arising...." My point is that it has jurisdiction over all cases with the EXCEPTION of what Congress says to the contrary. That is a huge exception. It is whatever Congress chooses to say it is. McCardle of Ex Parte McCardle found the distinction particularly relevant.
To: aristeides
But do you go to war to prevent somebody from doing something that is doubtfully legal? Do you go to war in support of something that is of doubtful legality?
568
posted on
01/20/2004 12:03:54 PM PST
by
Ditto
( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
To: exmarine
I just started reading this thread today and as such I am kind of late to the party.
I see that others have made some of the same points I made a few days before I did.
These threads are like the crack cocaine of Free Republic for me. I mean no offense to anyone personally(well ususally), but get kinda wrapeed up in the arguement.
And I don't have any answers either, just opinions.
To: hirn_man
Yes, I have changed my mind since my earlier posts on secession after encountering some good arguments in this forum. I can no longer be so dogmatic about the right to secede.
570
posted on
01/20/2004 12:10:24 PM PST
by
exmarine
( sic semper tyrannis)
To: WhiskeyPapa
But the fact is that, according to Taney, Congress can't delegate the Writ to the president or the military! What a laugher!See post 505 for the text (attributed to Jay incorrectly). It seems that Justice Joseph Story also believed that vested powers could not be delegated. Joined by justices Washington, Livingston, Todd, Duvall, Joseph Story and John Marshall. The lone dissenter was William Johnson.
571
posted on
01/20/2004 12:12:01 PM PST
by
4CJ
(||) Dialing 911 doesn't stop a crime - a .45 does. (||)
To: Ditto
I am more interested in the morality and legality of actions by my government than I am in the morality and legality of actions of another government.
To: aristeides
What other government?
573
posted on
01/20/2004 12:18:05 PM PST
by
Ditto
( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
To: Non-Sequitur
You would be wrong. Can you point me to a source showing that I am wrong?
To: aristeides
"I don't believe allowing the secession of the Lower South would have destroyed our nation."
I do.
I guess that point, like just about every point concerning the Civil War, is debatable.
Like calling it the Civil War. WBTS, War of Nothern Agression, the insurrection, War of Confederate Stupidity, we can't even agree on what to call the darn thing.
To: Ditto
You were talking about the Confederacy, weren't you?
To: aristeides
Well if secession is legally doubtful, then the Confederacy as a legitimate government was just as legally doubtful. Since secessionists were those making dubious claims and changing a government long established, was not the onus on them to have the question of legality resolved before they took action?
577
posted on
01/20/2004 12:25:23 PM PST
by
Ditto
( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
To: Ditto
To repeat, I am more interested in the morality and legality of actions by my government than I am in the morality and legality of actions of another government.
To: exmarine
I can no longer be so dogmatic about the right to secede.No offense, but what changed your mind? I have yet to discover any clause that grants the federal government the authority to coerce a state into remaining, no clause that commands the states to remain, no clause that bars them from leaving.
Madison called for the unveiling of the right of secession when abandoning the Articles. The Articles used the word "perpetual" not once, but 5 times, yet the Constitution abandoned that concept.
Three states - New York, Virginia and Rhode Island & Providence Plantations - explicitly reserved the right to resume the powers of self-government at their pleasure in their ratifications. There is no clause that consolidates the states into a single mass of people, no clause that demands a state appeal to the government for permission.
579
posted on
01/20/2004 12:33:47 PM PST
by
4CJ
(||) Dialing 911 doesn't stop a crime - a .45 does. (||)
To: 4ConservativeJustices
The Articles used the word "perpetual" not once, but 5 times, yet the Constitution abandoned that concept. I believe the Constitution's omission of the word "perpetual" was quite deliberate, and thus significant. After all, the very acts of drafting and then ratifying the Constitution constituted a defiance of the Articles' supposed perpetuity. (The Articles only allowed themselves to be amended by a unanimity of states.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560, 561-580, 581-600 ... 1,121-1,131 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson