Which is what I meant when I wrote, "the Constitution is the supreme law of the land," which you quoted above.
Opps, a misread on my part.
Only the Supreme Court has a say in what is constitutional.
Not true at all, Andrew Jackson ignored a Supreme Court decision using as justification the ability of the three branches of government to determine for themselves what is Constitutional. In fact, the power of Judical Review is not even granted to the Supreme court in the Constitution, rather it was an power that John Marshall invented for the Supreme Court in Marbairy vs Madison, using exactly this logic.
The president can pass or veto and law regardless of its constitutionality,[/QUOTE]
True, but they're not supose to, as is implied when they take their oath of office.
"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." "
The President, and other officials, may only be impeached for "Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." For example, if the President signs a law on gun control which is later found to violate the 2nd amendment, he can't be impeached for it.
That Presidents are not impeached for doing so does not mean they cannot be impeached doing so. The President takes an oath of office, for him, violating the Constitution certainly qualifes as "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".
To provide an example, would you say that Congress would NOT be justified in impeaching the President if he arbitarily supressed Free Speech and Freedom of the Press while throwing the Supreme Court in Prision and replacing them with loyal military officers? After all, all he did was violate the Constitution....
The constitution was written by several delegates from all of the states, not one man. It was based on Madison's Virginia plan as a starting point, but many things were changed along the way. The system was designed so that the Federal Government could not overstep its bounds, rendering an "ultimate check" worthless
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that States cannot seceed or that the Union is indissolvable. Thus it is a power retained by the States
and the people under the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Madison's quote in your example sounds like he wanted to keep a clause out of the constitution that allowed the Federal Army to attack states for things other than secession.
Did you even read the preceding sentance? Madison's quote on this issue was specifically on whether the Constitutional Convention should GRANT the Federal Government the power to supress a seceeding state.
Secondly, you completely ignored Madison's defense of the 2nd Amendment based on the Right of States to seceed. The fact remains, if the Federal Government was to have the power to supress seceeding States then it would have been explictily stated so in the Constitution.
It must also be noted that Thomas DiLorenzo has some radical ideas about the Civil War.
Appeal to riddicule, that DiLorenzo has a differing ("radical")opinion is irrelevant to the validty of the arguement.
The CSA, in the eyes of Union law, was not a foreign power, so Congress did not have to declare war.
Irrelevent in terms of your orginal arguement which was that there was nothing in the Constitution which supported the idea that the US could invade an annex a neighbor. The federal government IS granted this power, however it is NOT granted the power to prevent States from seceeding.
And the CSA fired the first shots of the war and had also already stolen a large amount of Federal property (forts, ammunition stores, ect.).
Both the fort and the ammunition were legally the South's upon secession. Before the Civil War the majority of Federal Income came from Tariffs, Tariffs t hat were paid mostly by the South; giving them the right to take their "fair share" when they left the Union. Ft. Sumpter also sits on t he soil of the South, thus if the South attacked the fort they were in reality, only attacking thier property and not the Federal Governments. The Federal Soldiers in Ft. Sumpter were there illegaly.
