Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"The Supreme Court was specifically given authority over controversies between states, or where the Federal government was a party."
As I've tried to tell you, a state's exercise of its own sovereign powers is not a 'controversy between the states' or a controversy where the Federal gov't is a party. You might find later Cheif Justice Marshall's words interesting here: "Can they [Congress] make laws affecting the mode of transferring property, or contracts, or claims between citizens of the same state? Can they go beyond the delegated powers? If they were to make a law not warrented by any of the powers enumerated, it would be consideredn by the Judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard: - THEY WOULD NOT CONSIDER SUCH A LAW AS COMING UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION. - They would declare it void." John Marshall on the Fairness and Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, June 20, 1788, in B. Bailyn, ed., The Debate on the Constitution (The Library of America, 1993), pp. 731-32.Note that 'laws affecting the mode of transferring property, or contracts, or claims between citizens of the same state' are, like secession and fireworks, subjects upon whidh a state may act entirely within their boundaries, which affect other states or people in other states. You would probably say that secession affects other states or people in other states in a degree that my other examples, and those of Marshall, do not. I would reply that the degree of 'affect' is irrelevant, under the Constitution, when a state exercises its own sovereign rights. In other words, the Constitution does not say that when a state's exercise of its own sovereign rights 'affects' others to a large degree, it becomes a 'controversy between the states' giving rise to federal court jurisdiction.
Please note that Marshall is saying to you here that it would be the Supreme Court that would make the decision on the controversy about the law. He is asserting the jurisdiction I am describing to you while you claim he does not. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
In short, Marshall is saying that if a state passes a law that the Supreme Court considers unconstitutional, they will declare it void. This is exactly what I am telling you. You seem to be saying you agree and do not agree at the same time.
I am not sure what you think a "controversy" is under the Constitution. It seems clear to me that one existed about both the existence and the details of the "right of secession" in 1860-61, that it involved all of the states individually as well as the United States as a whole, and that such issues are included in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by the Constitution should they choose to exert it.
Whether or not the Court would choose to hear such a case is another matter. My guess is that Taney would have been eager to do so. Whether the losing side in any result would abide by it is debatable as well, but I think the chances of a peaceful separation would have been increased by a decision in favor of the "right of secession", complete or partial.
Regards,
Tim
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"The Supreme Court was specifically given authority over controversies between states, or where the Federal government was a party."
As I've tried to tell you, a state's exercise of its own sovereign powers is not a 'controversy between the states' or a controversy where the Federal gov't is a party. You might find later Cheif Justice Marshall's words interesting here: "Can they [Congress] make laws affecting the mode of transferring property, or contracts, or claims between citizens of the same state? Can they go beyond the delegated powers? If they were to make a law not warrented by any of the powers enumerated, it would be consideredn by the Judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard: - THEY WOULD NOT CONSIDER SUCH A LAW AS COMING UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION. - They would declare it void." John Marshall on the Fairness and Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, June 20, 1788, in B. Bailyn, ed., The Debate on the Constitution (The Library of America, 1993), pp. 731-32.Note that 'laws affecting the mode of transferring property, or contracts, or claims between citizens of the same state' are, like secession and fireworks, subjects upon whidh a state may act entirely within their boundaries, which affect other states or people in other states. You would probably say that secession affects other states or people in other states in a degree that my other examples, and those of Marshall, do not. I would reply that the degree of 'affect' is irrelevant, under the Constitution, when a state exercises its own sovereign rights. In other words, the Constitution does not say that when a state's exercise of its own sovereign rights 'affects' others to a large degree, it becomes a 'controversy between the states' giving rise to federal court jurisdiction.
Please note that Marshall is saying to you here that it would be the Supreme Court that would make the decision on the controversy about the law. He is asserting the jurisdiction I am describing to you while you claim he does not. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
russ_aukerman said:What Marshall is saying is the fundamental principle that a court has jurisdiction to determine its jurisdiction.
In short, Marshall is saying that if a state passes a law that the Supreme Court considers unconstitutional, they will declare it void. This is exactly what I am telling you. You seem to be saying you agree and do not agree at the same time.
I am not sure what you think a "controversy" is under the Constitution. It seems clear to me that one existed about both the existence and the details of the "right of secession" in 1860-61, that it involved all of the states individually as well as the United States as a whole, and that such issues are included in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by the Constitution should they choose to exert it.
Whether or not the Court would choose to hear such a case is another matter. My guess is that Taney would have been eager to do so. Whether the losing side in any result would abide by it is debatable as well, but I think the chances of a peaceful separation would have been increased by a decision in favor of the "right of secession", complete or partial.
Regards,
Tim