Was the civil war constitutional

By the way, the doctrine in Marbury was that the Congress could not alter or enlarge enumerated constitutional powers. Just like the Congress cannot give the power to suppress rebellions to the army and navy when it was expressly given to the militia.

PS- You think he was mad for 16 years?

I don't think Marbury was about that. It was about acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution and acts of Congress that conflicted with one another. The Insurrection Act has been a federal law since 1807, and has always been Constitutional and has been used to render other SCOTUS decisions and remains Constitutional today. Rather than more opinion, you can simple prove me wrong by producing any SCOTUS decision that has ruled it unconstitutional.
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
I don't think Marbury was about that. It was about acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution and acts of Congress that conflicted with one another. The Insurrection Act has been a federal law since 1807, and has always been Constitutional and has been used to render other SCOTUS decisions and remains Constitutional today. Rather than more opinion, you can simple prove me wrong by producing any SCOTUS decision that has ruled it unconstitutional.


Marbury was exactly and precisely about that. The Judiciary Act of 1789 purpoted to give the SC the power to issue the writ of mandamus. The Court held that the Constitution defined the powers of the Court, and it gave no such power, and the Congress therefore could not give a power that the Constitution did not give.
 
Last edited:

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Just show me where the Constitution grants the authority to use the army and navy to suppress a rebellion. Under Article I, section 8, the authority is expressly given to the Congress to call up the militia for that purpose. It does not give Congress the authority to use the army and navy to suppress rebellion. I hope that clears it up for you.
Thanks for your response.
No, it does not. I repeat my question and add show where our constitution denies the President "the authority to use the army and navy to suppress a rebellion" or that the President can only use the militia "to suppress a rebellion".
One thing is certain: given the circumstances in 1861, it was not a particularly good time for extensive debate over what military units the President, as Commander in Chief, had authority to use to suppress the rebellion then in progress.
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Thanks for your response.
No, it does not. I repeat my question and add show where our constitution denies the President "the authority to use the army and navy to suppress a rebellion" or that the President can only use the militia "to suppress a rebellion".
One thing is certain: given the circumstances in 1861, it was not a particularly good time for extensive debate over what military units the President, as Commander in Chief, had authority to use to suppress the rebellion then in progress.

Thanks for your reply. And it should. But I will repeat my question; please show me where the Constitution empowers the Congress to use the army and navy to suppress rebellion.
 
Marbury was exactly and precisely about that. The Judiciary Act of 1789 purpoted to give the SC the power to issue the writ of mandamus. The Court held that the Constitution defined the powers of the Court, and it gave no such power, and the Congress therefore could not give a power that the Constitution did not give.

Yes that I agree with only because the Judiciary Act conflicted with the provisions and judiciary powers under Article III of the Constitution. Marbury did not rule against implied powers of Article I, section 8. It ruled that a law passed by Congress in conflict with the Constitution is not law and if two laws were in conflict with each other it would be up to the Court via judicial review to determine which law applies to the given circumstance before it.
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Yes that I agree with only because the Judiciary Act conflicted with the provisions and judiciary powers under Article III of the Constitution. Marbury did not rule against implied powers of Article I, section 8. It ruled that a law passed by Congress in conflict with the Constitution is not law and if two laws were in conflict with each other it would be up to the Court via judicial review to determine which law applies to the given circumstance before it.


The Judiciary Act purported to enlarge the powers of the Court. The Congress had no authority to do that because the Constitution had already defined the powers of the Court. In like manner, Article I explicitly provides that the Congress is to use the Militia to suppress rebellion. The Congress cannot then grant itself the power to use the army and navy to suppress rebellion. Rather, Congress is limited, quite properly, by the explicit language of Article I, section 8. If the framers had intended for the Congress to use the army and navy to suppress rebellion, they could have and would have said so. But they did not.
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
But that doesn't speak to the issue of the complete absence of the constitutional authority to wage war against a state.

My interpretation, of your interpretations--thus far--is...that your opinion is flawed.

Let me guess, you think that Mr. Supreme Justice Taney was an inspired soul. Cüz, he considered IT Legäl amiright, 1stvermont?
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Insurrection Act of 1807

ß 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority link Link 2


Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.



@Kelly said:
I notice you don't quote from the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, which gives authority to use the militia, and not the Army or Navy. Now, please show me where the Constitution gives the authority for the federal government to wage war against a state, using the army and navy.

Were the various Militia Acts, Constitutionally voted upon and approved according to Article I, @Kelly / @StrikingViking?

58ffe837-4805-4d78-aac0-b5e8eca6c755.png

http://jjmccullough.com/CSA.htm
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Strange that the founders tossed aside a weak government for a strong one.

Indeed. What...could, They have been thinking, of? A possible, future...minority, seeking to reverse the path towards further Freedom...For All?

As, first seen as an example for the World, in The Declaration of Independence?

What silly dreamers, these mortals, Be. :whistling:
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
So this thread is about a guy with no understanding of 200 years of US legal jurisprudence, repeating over and over again that he doesn't understand how the US constitution works?

That's nice.
CWT members have the absolute freedom not to respond to posts they feel are unworthy of response.
 

BarryR

Corporal
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Location
Tampa Bay
So this thread is about a guy with no understanding of 200 years of US legal jurisprudence, repeating over and over again that he doesn't understand how the US constitution works?

That's nice.


Nor has he been here since May 7, 2002 with his only post...or a sock puppet has taken his place.....
 
This is the complete Insurrection Act of 1807 that has remained unchanged until amended in 2017 and 2018 and has not been declared unconstitutional by any Federal Court. I'll let viewers decide if Lincoln's call for troops was unconstitutional:

Insurrection Act of 1807

ß 331. Federal aid for State governments
Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

ß 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

ß 333. Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it–
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

ß 334. Proclamation to disperse
Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
All I asked was for someone to show me the constitutional provision which grants authority for the federal government to wage war against a state. Seems a perfectly reasonable request.
How exactly is suppressing a rebellion "a war against a state" ? Are you aware that at least 104k Southern white men and well over 150k black Southern men enlisted in the Union Army per " Lincoln's Loyalists Union Soldiers from the Confederacy" Richard Current North East University Press?
That figure does not include Unionist guerrillas and home guards.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Great. You have shown me where the federal government has the authority to use the militia to suppress a rebellion. But that's not what I asked for. Please show me the provision granting the federal government the authority to use the Army and Navy to wage war against a state. These are very, very, different things.
Can you please cite case law to prove your so far unsourced assertion that there is a legal concept known as "waging war against a state".
Thanks
Leftyhunter
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
How exactly is suppressing a rebellion "a war against a state" ? Are you aware that at least 104k Southern white men and well over 150k black Southern men enlisted in the Union Army per " Lincoln's Loyalists Union Soldiers from the Confederacy" Richard Current North East University Press?
That figure does not include Unionist guerrillas and home guards.
Leftyhunter



How man British subjects opposed the lawless rebels and stayed loyal to their King and Country and fought against the violent, slave-owning, slave-trafficking insurrectionists in 1776? Got those numbers?
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Can you please cite case law to prove your so far unsourced assertion that there is a legal concept known as "waging war against a state".
Thanks
Leftyhunter


Can you please show me where the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to support you unfounded assertion that it may wage war against a state?
 
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
M Constitutional Law Additional Discussion on Secession 2

Similar threads

Top