Posted on 01/13/2004 9:01:35 AM PST by Aurelius
What mob rule? The seceding states voted in convention to leave.
Exactly where in he Constitution does it state that elections results mandate a state remaining in the union?
Perhaps the strategy was to use economic weapons to crush the south's unfair edge in the marketplace -- slave labor.
And Howard Dean is that Candidate!
Is that so? Then you should be able to name any given one of these "many people" who believed this, excluding of course the Lincoln administration itself, which invented the "power" for obvious reasons.
Why, Congress, of course.
When they refunded Andrew Jackson's $1,000 fine with interest. Heck, he wasn't even president when he suspended the Writ.
Now, you're going to explain how Jackson was going to get in touch with Congress and get them to suspend the Writ--- there being no telegraph of course --- in time to forestall the British forces on the door step of New Orleans?
Walt
They proclaimed the actions of the president lawful under the Militia Act.
Walt
Main Entry: reb·el
Pronunciation: 're-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French rebelle, from Latin rebellis, from re- + bellum war, from Old Latin duellum
Date: 14th century
1 a : opposing or taking arms against a government or ruler b : of or relating to rebels
2 : DISOBEDIENT, REBELLIOUS
Jefferson Davis took up arms against the lawful government.
Just pondering.
Let's alert the Supreme Court, shall we? Maybe they'll get the Circuit Court to rename the decision.
Where does it say that habeas corpus may be suspended only through legislation?
Would that Lincoln could have obeyed the judge like Andrew Jackson eventually did. On paying the fine in New Orleans for having suspended to writ illegally, Jackson said:
Considering obedience to the laws, even when we think them unjustly applied, is the first duty of the citizen, and I do not hesitate to comply with the sentence you have heard pronounced; and I entreat you to remember the example I have given you of respectful submission to the administration of justice.
Didn't Congress remit Jackson's fine when he was about to become president a decade or more after he paid the fine?
That is an interesting comment.
IIRC Secretary of State Seward also wanted to gin up a conflict with Great Britain as a means of preserving the Union. So by following Seward's advice there would have been a war, just not a civil war.
Legislative acts of Congress do not overturn judicial decisions.
Good. Even the Supreme Court could only invent a decision based upon this being a "more perfect union" - they could not find any provision preventing secession. The founders, every single one in the federal and state conventions that voted to ratify, was a secessionist.
Alexander Hamilton opined during the debates that even a monarchy was "republician" if voted to that position. In Federalist no. 78 he wrote that it is the 'fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.' Hamilton was a New Yorker, and agreed with his state regarding the resumption of powers.
Article I, Section 1. More specifically, it says that it may only be suspended by Congress, which implied by necessity an act of legislation.
Give the names and provide the quote where they said somebody else could suspend it.
When they refunded Andrew Jackson's $1,000 fine with interest.
Jackson wasn't president and a simple refund of his fine does not make his act legal after the fact.
That makes for a fancy excuse, but not economic sense. The yankee protectionists in 1860 said not a word about using economics to defeat slavery, nor did they likely even understand that much. Their entire message was nothing more than the following: we need government to help us overcome competition from abroad.
As for the south's alleged "unfair edge," it was becoming anything but that. In 1860 slavery was becoming increasingly less viable in an economic sense. Wage labor costs were going down and slave labor costs were going up - a trend that had been occurring for at least a decade. When prices on an economic input continually rise entrepreneurs eventually substitute it with a cheaper alternative.
WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID:
THE QUESTION:Mr. Justice GRIER.
There are certain propositions of law which must necessarily affect the ultimate decision of these cases, and many others, which it will be proper to discuss and decide before we notice the special facts peculiar to each.
They are, 1st. Had the President a right to institute a blockade of ports in possession of persons in armed rebellion against the Government, on the principles of international law, as known and acknowledged among civilized States?
THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON THAT QUESTION:
On this first question therefore we are of the opinion that the President had a right, jure belli, to institute a blockade of ports in possession of the States in rebellion, which neutrals are bound to regard.
"The president had a right, jure belli...."
The president had a right pursuant to the laws of war....
Stop waving your dicta all over the place. It is unseemly and calls attention to your shortcomings.
Jackson did the right thing. President Lincoln did the right thing.
Walt
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.