Originally posted by BlkbrryTheGreat
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.
Correct, the Supreme Court ruled against him twice. He could have been impeached for defying the court. However, the Congress was on his side in the issue, and since they are the only ones that can impeach him, he escaped punishment. It was a dark era of US history, and to say it is the norm or was even the lawful thing to do is incorrect.
Originally posted by BlkbrryTheGreat
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....
Your original point as I took it was that any branch of government can decide the constitutionality of something, and one of congress' ways was that they could impeach the president. You are giving examples of the president doing outlandish things, not deciding what is constitutional. If I misconstrued your remarks, then I am sorry.
Originally posted by BlkbrryTheGreat
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.
Treason is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. And as I mentioned, the Supreme Court deemed it illegal, a decision which is still on the books today.
Originally posted by BlkbrryTheGreat
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.
According to the author, that's what the quote referred to. It could however have been on whether the Federal Government should send troops in when they have a dispute with a state, which the author could have assumed to mean a secession. I've read the author, and he shapes facts in ways that prove his point. You also completely ignore that Madison was not the only author of the Constitution.
Originally posted by BlkbrryTheGreat
Secondly, you completely ignored Madison's defense of the 2nd Amendment based on the Right of States to seceed.
Once again, Madison does not mention secession in that quote, but it could be construed to mean that if you have no context information.
Originally posted by BlkbrryTheGreat
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.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
There it is, explicitly in the Constitution.
Originally posted by BlkbrryTheGreat
Appeal to riddicule, that DiLorenzo has a differing ("radical")opinion is irrelevant to the validty of the arguement.
Since you took his quoted words as fact, the validity of his writing is in fact very germane to this discussion. If I were to quote my Uncle Frank, would you give his words any weight?
Originally posted by BlkbrryTheGreat
The federal government IS granted this power, however it is NOT granted the power to prevent States from seceeding.
Please see:
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15
Texas vs. White, US Supreme Court 1869
Any US History textbook, yrs. 1861-1865
Originally posted by BlkbrryTheGreat
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.
First off, the original secession was illegal (see above), so that property can't be legally theirs. Secondly, even IF it were legal to secede, what's your legal precedent or argument that says that all Federal property would be handed over to the states? The Federal Government is a different entity than the states. Current military bases are on Federal property.
