Texas V White

[Hanny]

Cant get a post to stick on the thread so will continue here.

Originally Posted by oldreb

I have seen this used in a number of threads regarding the consitutionality of Secession.
I do not find this to be a hearing on the legality of Secession as it is post-facto.

Correct, its an ex post facto rulling, on a matter not argued in court.

Originally Posted by oldreb

Find me a source that discusses secession pre-1861, that the United States Supreme Court heard and ruled on in toto and we can discuss.

No one can provide that for you, the USCC is limited by the Judiciary Act as to what it can rule on, it cannot now or then rule on the Sov status of a State as that authority has never been granted to it to do so.
There are many refernces to the revailing circamstances as the Judge understands the matter, he may make orbiter Dicta or corum non Judice, that is, remarks bye the way to expalin how he consdiers the larger issue, but they are without legal wieght, but still good pointers non the less.

Originally Posted by oldreb

For those who are not comfortable with this case, let me put it in a nutshell...

TEXAS V. WHITE. Texas v. White, a suit of the state of Texas against George W. White, John Chiles, and others, was filed in the United States Supreme Court on February 15, 1867, during the administration of A. J. Hamilton,ad interim Reconstruction governor of Texas, and sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from using Texas Indemnity Bonds paid to them by Texas after secessionqv for supplies for the Confederate States of America and to obtain the restoration of fifty-one of the bonds. The case was argued by George W. Paschalqv and R. T. Merrick for the state and Philip Philips, Albert Pike, J. W. Carlisle, and J. W. Moore for the defense.
The most historically significant question involved was whether or not Texas, having seceded and not having completed Reconstruction, had status in the Union and therefore the right to sue in the United States Supreme Court.

Ill stop you right there, that matter (secesssion) was not before the court as part of the suit, nor argued on during the trial by anyone, and therfore any reference to it in the rulling is corum non judice, ie a Judicial opinion without authorative meaning or weight or consideration, it had already been established by Mississippi V Johnstone where Chase declined to here a suit of State aginst the presidents use of Reconstruction Acts against it, this Acts are not courts jurisdiction of the USSC and thus dismissed through lack of juridiction, Georgia v Stanton tried to the same aginst the Sec Of war for enacting the Reconstruction Acts and was told agin the USSC had no jurisdiction on these Acts, then the mil Gov of Texas brough suit, he draws his posistion by presidintial apointment ie he has no constitionl oversight or grant of powers, and thus the USSC has no jurisdiction, and is outside the USSC to appeal on, and he (the mil Gov)is simply the next man in the chain of command from Pres, to Sec of war to Mil Commander of a State, that means the man was not goverend by or restrained by the USSC or Congress or the Constition, and the USSC had already declined it had any authority to hear on these authoritys, quite why anyone would think Chase then hearing it without an appeal winning hands dow is a bit of a puzzle, secondly to that only matters before the court can pass into precedent, since secesion was not part of the suit, Texas v White has never been viewed by the USSC as haveing made legal precedent, not only because its on a mater not before the court and therfore non precedential making, but that part of the suit was overturned on appeal because of a writ of error of jurisdiction, the court provided its own means in making the rulling to provide an iron cast appeal to dismiss its own ruleing. Its worth noteing that Chase cites nothing from the Constition, but uses the articles of Confederation pretty strong arguments he was able to find.....secesion cannot occur because the AOC say so!!.

Originally Posted by blackirish

If there still remained further doubt in anyone's mind let me refer you to the following opinion of the court in 79 US 457 Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis in 1870:
Furthermore; the Supreme Court again addressed the question in Hanauer v. Woodruff in 1872;
From the opinion of the court:
As you can see; The Supreme Court has ruled on the question of secession repeatedly and in each case concurred that the attempt by the southern states to secede was ILLEGAL under the Constitution.

There is no doubt at all, just look at the Judicary Act, the Sov status of a state is not withing its jurisdiction, as that is a political qustion of which they can take no note.
Now what i do see is a lot of orbiter Dictum, which is all the Courts have ever given, no court ever has or can rule on secesion. I see dates of 1870 and 1872 on cases, what the court though at that at time is of note, as is Ware v Hylton 1798 S Chase signer of the DOI and then USSC Judge.
In June 1776 the convention of Va formally declared that VA was free and an independednt State and on the 4th July following the United states in Congress assembled declared that the 13 United Colonies were fre, independednt states, and as such had full power to levy war, conclude peace etc. I Consider this declaration not that the United states jointly collectivly capacity were independednt Statesetc, but that each of them was Soveriegn and independednt states, and that each of them had the right govern itself of its own authority and its own law without any control from any power on earth."
Cherekee nation v Georgia USSC 1831 S Johston, Worcester v Georgia 1831 J Marshall, both cases recongised the individual tribes of the Cherkee nation and other tribes in Confedrations, as seperate Sovriegntys, "because they were distinct and independent pollitical communities which goverened themselves by their own laws and customs while being part of a larger political Union called the Cherekee Nation".
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/name.htm list landmark cases and how the USSC uses them for guidence on rullings, heres how its applied, note, it contains no mention of secesion, for the good and simple reason that the case is not concerned with it.
The cases you mention are all under the provision of the 14th amendemt, wherin everyone is now a United States citizen and the State they reside, intitled to all rights and privaleges, due process, right to vote etc, all gaurented not to be abridged by any state, prior to the 14th your right of citizenship was determined by being born or naturlized into a State, the constition is silent on who can be a citizen untill the 14th, the only input it has is to make the naturization law for changing citzinship from one State to another uniform throught the members of the Union, because no one degated the right to determine who can be a citizen away from the States themselves, who reatined this because without Subjects you cannot be Soveriegn, and there was no such citizen as a United States Citizen untill the legilslation was passed in 1866 to create them, there was only citizens of States who were members of the Union, who were gaurented the same rights and privaleges due to membership in other States of the Union, and the state determined who could vote, placing property or colour bars in the State constition`s.
That was aftere all laregly why the reconstrcted States refused to ratify the 14th in the first place as it ended state Sov and placed all citizens in a new relationship of being subjects of the United States, something they never delegated away before, as long as the 14th is in place secession cannot exist as a recorse in law, and so your cites are correct, but not based on laws not in place in 1860 and not rullings on secesion because the USSC has no jurisdictional authority to hear them, but i do like the concept that the the FF created such a black robe body that could rule on its creators right to create.
All your bases belong to us now.
Now i can play misaplication of USSC as well. If you think im wrong, ever woundered why Texas/white was overturned on appeal or never used as legal precdednt on any case involving secesion?.
Fleming v. Page (1850), 50 U.S. 603.
The duty of allegiance is reciprocal to the duty of protection. When, therefore, a nation is unable to protect a portion of its territory from the superior force of an enemy, it loses its claim to the allegiance of those whom it fails to protect, and the conquered inhabitants pass under a temporary allegiance to the conqueror, and are bound by such laws, and such only, as he may choose to impose. The sovereignty of the nation which is thus unable to protect its territory is displaced, and that of the successful conqueror is substituted in its stead.
The jurisdiction of the conqueror is complete. He may change the form of government and the laws at his pleasure, and may exercise every attribute of sovereignty. The conquered territory becomes a part of the domain of the conqueror, subject to the right of the nation to which it belonged to recapture it if they can. By reason of this right to recapture, the title of the conqueror is not perfect until confirmed by treaty of peace.... As long as he retains possession he is sovereign; and not the less sovereign because his sovereignty may not endure for ever.
...[b]y conquest and firm military occupation of a portion of an enemy's country, the sovereignty of the nation to which the conquered territory belongs is subverted, and the sovereignty of the conqueror is substituted in its place.... [A]lthough this sovereignty, until cession by treaty, is subject to be ousted by the enemy, and therefore does not give an indefeasible title for purposes of alienation, yet while it exists it is supreme, and confers jurisdiction without limit over the conquered territory, and the right to allegiance in return for protection.
The Laws of War, 1860
"A territory is considered to be occupied where, as the result of its invasion by an enemy's force, the state to which it belongs has ceased in fact to exercise its ordinary authority within it and the invading state is alone in a position to maintain order. The extent and duration of the occupation are determined by the limits of space and time within which this state of things exists."

[unionblue]

Hanny,

I beg to differ, it was not an ex post facto ruling.

I found the following on another board. I give it here, with limited editing:

"Even though the decision, Texas v. White, was handed years after the end of the war, it does not make it irrelevant. The law is the law, and White interpreted the law as it existed at the time in question. In fact, every single federal court case occurs after the fact.

White was decided on the Constitution as it stood at the time relevant to the controversy at issue--i.e., whether Texas had the power to secede on February 1, 1861. It was the same Constitution that was in effect in 1860 when South Carolina declared secession.

You don't have to like it; but your position that White had no effect prior to 1869 is wrong. The Court and the law doesn't work that way and like it or not, unilateral secession is unconstitutional, and per White always has been."

Seems pretty plain to me.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Hanny,

I beg to differ, it was not an ex post facto ruling.

I found the following on another board. I give it here, with limited editing:

"Even though the decision, Texas v. White, was handed years after the end of the war, it does not make it irrelevant. The law is the law, and White interpreted the law as it existed at the time in question. In fact, every single federal court case occurs after the fact.

White was decided on the Constitution as it stood at the time relevant to the controversy at issue--i.e., whether Texas had the power to secede on February 1, 1861. It was the same Constitution that was in effect in 1860 when South Carolina declared secession.

You don't have to like it; but your position that White had no effect prior to 1869 is wrong. The Court and the law doesn't work that way and like it or not, unilateral secession is unconstitutional, and per White always has been."

Seems pretty plain to me.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

You disagree over it not being ex post facto?. Thats from the Latin for "from something done afterward" so the case is clearly that, and the Constition itself does not allow ex post facto laws to be retroctivly applied to any citizen or court rulling. Chase will go on to decalre all his work on introducing the Greenbacks as currency during the war, as being unconstional, but that does not make it unconstional when he did so.

Now the other board, (do you have a link?) makes a different argument than you, it makes the not irrelavent argument, saying correctly that the Constition was the same, correct but the court does not rule on any constional grounds that a State can leave the Union, it cites the AOC not the Constition, the AOC have the peretual Union, in law perpetual means without a limit of time, and in force untill lawfully recinded, it does not mean undisolvable, in treaty law perpetuality is always included, unless stipulated to a time period, just as US and France enter into a perpetual alliance during the AWI, only for the US to unilateraly leave the alliance later on, just as did all but 2 states leave the AOC to enter into a new Union, despite the express condition that all States must agree to dissolve the AOC being contained in its formulation, or agree to any amendements.

So what is plain?.

First the USSC has never rulled on the right of secesion, and cannot under the Jurisdiction acts it works under.

Texas V White relies refers not to any Constional aspects when rulling on the courts understanding of the nature of the Union.

Conclusion must fit the evidence, when they do not they become beliefs of limited value. Had Germany not been defeated, and Himmler been apointed to the Supreme court in Germany, im sure he would rule it lawfull and legal under the Nuremburg race laws in existance prior to the death camps, it lawfull to commit Genocide.

[unionblue]

Hanny,

I understand the Latin and what ex post facto means. It simply does not apply when dealing with the Supreme Court cases. The phrase, in latin or otherwise, is meaningless in this case.

Sorry, but that's the way the law works (especially the Supreme Court). You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but as it has been stated, every single federal court case occurs after the fact.

I also view Texas v. White a bit different from you in that it does rule on secession. I also have seen USSC cases that ruled, directly or indirectly, on secession, before the Civil War. I will try and find the thread(s) here on CivilWarTalk and direct them to you as I have no desire to repost them again.

I'll get the link to the site for you where I found this line of logic to you as soon as I can. I am at work and cannot find it at the moment.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Hanny,

I understand the Latin and what ex post facto means. It simply does not apply when dealing with the Supreme Court cases. The phrase, in latin or otherwise, is meaningless in this case.

Sorry, but that's the way the law works (especially the Supreme Court). You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but as it has been stated, every single federal court case occurs after the fact.

I also view Texas v. White a bit different from you in that it does rule on secession. I also have seen USSC cases that ruled, directly or indirectly, on secession, before the Civil War. I will try and find the thread(s) here on CivilWarTalk and direct them to you as I have no desire to repost them again.

I'll get the link to the site for you where I found this line of logic to you as soon as I can. I am at work and cannot find it at the moment.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

I look forward to those links and appreciate you finding them.

Im expecting that they deall with Sovreignty in terms of delagation, as in Ogden, for instance, not the right of secesion.

I would agree that the court passes comment on the nature of the Union, but it has no legal weight, nor does any other case do more than pass comment on how it understands the nature of the Union at that time.

If the USSC can tell a state it is no longer Sov, then it can tell it who can be a citizen, and there is no problem over slavery at all, the USSC can simply solve the dipsute.

[ole]

If the USSC can tell a state it is no longer Sov, then it can tell it who can be a citizen, and there is no problem over slavery at all, the USSC can simply solve the dipsute.

Hanny, sir. Ex post facto does indeed mean "after the fact." It is most commonly used to describe a law passed after a "crime" has occurred. You cannot be prosecuted for a crime committed before the law was passed.

You are using it to describe a ruling made after the fact. But the ruling in question has the effect of saying that what was done was done unlawfully, that it is unlawful now and that it was unlawful then.

I do like the clarification: "the USSC can simply solve the dispute." And, to my understanding, that's what it did.
Ole

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by ole

Hanny, sir. Ex post facto does indeed mean "after the fact." It is most commonly used to describe a law passed after a "crime" has occurred. You cannot be prosecuted for a crime committed before the law was passed.

You are using it to describe a ruling made after the fact. But the ruling in question has the effect of saying that what was done was done unlawfully, that it is unlawful now and that it was unlawful then.

I do like the clarification: "the USSC can simply solve the dispute." And, to my understanding, that's what it did.
Ole

You startby agreeing that you cannot be guilty of ex post facto laws, and i agree, thats Union Blue who says you can not me, its he who thinks this, quite why is not clear as yet, im waiting for the links to the hread to see why this so, but clearly this would entail a complet nonsense of legal precedednt, and open all prior casses to appeal based on a the newest rulling, since that is not he case, itonly remains to find out why UnionBlue was under the impresion tha his bizare situation exists in law.

You go on to say the ruleing is made after the event and again i agree.

Lastly, no the USSC did not tell the states that the slaves were free, that required an amdment and ratification. My point here is that could the USSC tell a State who was or not a citizen, then all the provision in the Constiion and State Constiions are redundent, that power being so absolute as to make the branch a despotic instition.

[ami]

not seeing any problem, try refreshing