Don't be eager for a civil war, Virginia. the result will be the same for you as the last time.

You have to win this fight at the ballot box. you cannot win it on the battlefield.

I would add that, at this time, they cannot win this in court either. Note that all this pandering is about laws that do not exist. It is about proposed legislation, to be taken up, or not, in the 2020 legislative session.

Who will they fight on the batttlefield? Someone who proposed a law?

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/politics/virginia-second-amendment-sanctuary-cities/65-885b5e9c-0454-4f6c-8bee-7c6785e0af08

Virginia Attorney General says proposed gun laws will be enforced despite opposition

Those in favor of second amendment sanctuary cities said AG Herring's legal opinion will 'stir up a hornet's nest across the state.'

Author: Sarah Konsmo
WUSA9
Published: 7:12 PM EST December 20, 2019
Updated: 7:12 PM EST December 20, 2019

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, Va. — Virginia’s Attorney General gave his legal opinion Friday on a growing movement among Virginia cities and counties to declare themselves second amendment sanctuaries, rather than abide by new gun control legislation.

AG Mark Herring said state laws can’t be ignored by local governments.

"When the General Assembly passes new gun violence legislation, they will be followed, and they will be enforced," Herring said.

The new gun safety proposals include universal background checks, re-instating a one gun per month law and a red flag law aimed at reducing the risk of someone in crisis hurting themselves or others.

"We’re talking about very reasonable gun violence legislation that has broad public support," Herring said.

Corey Stewart, chairman at-large of Prince William County's board of supervisors, remains defiant. Prince William is among the counties that has declared itself a second amendment sanctuary.

"That doesn’t mean that the localities and the local sheriff’s have to use their resources to enforce a gun confiscation law, or any other unconstitutional law that Democrats and the General Assembly pass."

Stewart said Herring's legal opinion will stir up a hornet’s nest across the state.

"The Attorney General is delusional if he thinks this is just some movement that’s been ginned up by the so-called gun lobby," Stewart said. "This is a groundswell movement if there ever was one."

Still, Herring said he believes there’s an even bigger constituency in the state who want gun laws to change.

"Voters sent a real strong signal that they wanted something to be done, and that they were tired of the status quo," Herring said.

According to the Attorney General’s office, more than 10,000 people have been killed by a gun since 2007.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/politics/2020-virginia-legislative-files-bills-before-session-gun-safety/65-a7564f8b-4787-4804-ba85-359996fc8d0a

Numerous bills introduced before the start of Virginia's 2020 legislative session deal with gun safety

'We in Virginia have felt the sting of gun violence, all the way back to Virginia Tech,' said Delegate Ken Plum.

Author: Kolbie Satterfield (WUSA 9)
WUSA9
Published: 7:05 PM EST November 19, 2019
Updated: 6:56 PM EST November 20, 2019

VIRGINIA, USA — For the first time in 26 years, the Democrats have the majority in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and they didn't waste time filing bills for the 2020 session.

Delegate Ken Plum introduced a bill that would institute universal background checks.

"The voters want us to do something about increasing gun violence," Plum said. "And we in Virginia have felt the sting of gun violence, all the way back to Virginia Tech."

Plum isn't the only one that filed a bill focused around gun safety.

Virginia State Senator Richard Saslaw filed four in the state Senate, ranging from limiting handgun purchases to putting an age requirement on who can use guns, prohibiting the sale or possession of an assault firearm and another dealing with background checks.

"There's going to be some upset people, but they say elections have consequences," Saslaw said.

Andrew Gilliam owns a gun shop in Warrenton and said the bill focusing on the prohibition of the sale or possession of an assault firearm gives him pause.

"Without fully understanding what an assault firearm is, this takes away 80% of my retail," Gilliam said. "The other 20% of my retail can be bought on Amazon."

Gilliam said he's worried about Virginians who already own these types of guns.

"That's what's going to get people a little bit upset, because in that bill, it says possession of these firearms and that could turn a lot of Virginians into felons overnight," Gilliam said. "So I think that's a little bit extreme."

The bill states the definition of an assault firearm would also expand to include a firearm magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

While this isn't Plum's bill, he has weighed in on it.

"Citizens possessing what is essentially a machine gun -- you can call it a high capacity rifle, or whatever, it's essentially a machine gun --is not necessary, nor is it desirable in a civilized society, and nor is it necessary for public safety," Plum said.

Gilliam said he just worries about the ripple effect some of these bills could cause, even impacting other proposed bills.

"You start losing mom and pop stores and people won’t have anywhere they can go do background checks and transfers," Gilliam said. "They won't be able to transfer any weapons. It's gonna create some serious problems there. There's kind of a big ripple effect with some of these bills."

The best choice is to put forth the political effort to PERSUADE the majority to change its mind. There are ways to do that: keep track of the statistics, of crime and victims. Show the people that the gun legislation didn't work as designed, but DID have bad side effects. Convince the people to change the law. That may or may not work, but that's democracy.

The other choices are various forms of rebellion and resistance, which don't convince the majority, just anger them, and which only result in various levels of worsening losses to the rebels (depending on whether they are peaceful "passive resisters" or wage open warfare a la 1861.)

That never works.

If the majority of voters in Virginia support this legislation, and [if] the majority of legislators pass it and [if] the governor signs it, it's the law. The minority has recourse to the courts.

But as it stands, none of the bills is law, and none has even made its way to committee. At this point, one can hardly prevail in court to prevent the legislature from considering a bill.

It is just a tad premature for some to respond to the right pandering about the end of the world, because of the left pandering to its radicals by proposing a bunch of bills which, if adopted, would be unlikely to survive judicial challenge. (For decades, the right has pandered with bills to outlaw abortion, knowing any such law had no chance of survival. One more Trump appointee, and that may change.)

At this point, there is nobody to go to war against but the drafters of several bills. The bills have not even received a vote in committee. They have merely been pre-filed, and sit in an inbox someplace, awaiting the start of the 2020 session so they will actually be filed.

[Eric Peters] Look at a map of the last election. The state remains overwhelmingly red – but the blues control the entire state government. It is because the blues – like a cancerous mole – control the densely populated counties adjacent to the federal capital.

I think he meant that there are now more blues than reds. They are largely transplants from out of state, concentrated in northern Virginia, in the burbs of D.C.

The real political flashpoint will come when Texas goes blue, and the urban liberals try to Californicate rural Texas.

The real political flashpoint will come when Texas goes blue, and the urban liberals try to Californicate rural Texas.

You're right about this.

But if Texas goes blue, rural Texas, too, will comply with the law, one way or the other. There will be no strategic depth in the country, by that point, to be able to resist.

And here's the thing, the country doesn't HAVE to go Blue, but it will unless the Red get smart and reasonable. The whole reassertion of white race consciousness, etc, is not the way. Nor will we ever return to laissez-faire capitalism. Really, what the Red need to do is return to Nixonism, but without the scandals (or, rather, with a willingness to politically engage in scorched earth against the Democrats when they try to manufacture scandal out of Presidential faux pas).

But I've learned that my saying what needs to be done persuades nobody on the Right. It is pretty much the voice of the centrist independents around whom our status quo is built, and who will continue to get their way. It would be a lot less traumatic if the Red learned to like Purple better. I'd prefer not to have to keep fighting them and presiding, partly, over the crushing of their traditional beliefs and dreams. I'd prefer to leave more of the traditions intact and for the Red to accept necessary change to make the country better.

I hope it's not 1861 again either. There was no French, or British, Navy or Army coming that time, making the result inevitable.

Armed rebellion against the authority of the US or a state will simply result in something akin to Waco, on a grander scale perhaps. It is not the way.

― Patrick Rothfuss, The Wise Man's Fear

I hope it's not 1861 again either. There was no French, or British, Navy or Army coming that time, making the result inevitable.

Armed rebellion against the authority of the US or a state will simply result in something akin to Waco, on a grander scale perhaps.

Please forgive my intrusion or digression, but I haven't had occasion to drag out the documents about putting the militia to work in many years. For those unfamiliar with how to get a really big civil disturbance going, here are the historical documents regarding use of the military force against combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals. For example, the combinations may be interfering with the ability to collect the revenue, and that can lead to a great civil disturbance about the collection of the revenue.

The Militia Act of 1795 reads as follows:

An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to exe­cute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions, and to repeal the act now in force for those purposes.

Be it enacted, &c., That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the State or States most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper. And, in case of an insurrection in any State against the Government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the Legislature of such State, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or States as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That when­ever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed in any State, by combinations too powerful to be sup­pressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such State, or of any other State or States, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress.

* * *

Section 1 explicitly addresses invasion and insurrection. Section 2 addresses civil disturbances which interfere with the courts and allows the militia to be used to assist the marshals of the courts to enable the courts to function and the laws to be duly executed. Attorney General Black stated that "to execute the laws of the Union" meant "to aid the federal officers in the performance of their regular duties." As there were no Federal officers in the seceded states, there were none to assist.

From Twenty Years of Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield. With a review of the events which led to the political revolution of 1860, by James G. Blaine. Vol. I, pp. 603-605.

Opinion of Judge Black, November 20, 1860

The Tenth chapter of this volume having been given to the press in advance of formal publication, many inquiries have been received in regard to the text of Judge Black's opinion of November 20, 1860, referred to on pp. 231, 232. The opinion was submitted to the President by Judge Black as Attorney-General. So much of the opinion as includes the points which are specially controverted and criticised is here given — about one-half of the entire document. It is as follows:—

. . . "I come now to the point in your letter which is probably of the greatest practical importance. By the Act of 1807 you may employ such parts of the land and naval forces as you may judge necessary for the purpose of causing the laws to be duly executed, in all cases where it is lawful to use the militia for the same purpose. By the Act of 1795 the militia may be called forth 'whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any State by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of Judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals.' This imposes upon the President the sole responsibility of deciding whether the exigency has arisen which requires the use of military force, and in proportion to the magnitude of that responsibility will be his care not to overstep the limits of his legal and just authority.

"The laws referred to in the Act of 1795 are manifestly those which are administered by the judges, and executed by the ministerial officers of the courts for the punishment of crime against the United States, for the protection of rights claimed under the Federal Constitution and laws, and for the enforcement of such obligations as come within the cognizance of the Federal Judiciary. To compel obedience to these laws, the courts have authority to punish all who obstruct their regular administration, and the marshals and their deputies have the same powers as sheriffs and their deputies in the several States in executing the laws of the States. These are the ordinary means provided for the execution of the laws; and the whole spirit of our system is opposed to the employment of any other, except in cases of extreme necessity arising out of great and unusual combinations against them. Their agency must continue to be used until their incapacity to cope with the power opposed to them shall be plainly demonstrated. It is only upon clear evidence to that effect that a military force can be called into the field. Even then its operations must be purely defensive. It can suppress only such combinations as are found directly opposing the laws and obstructing the execution thereof. It can do no more than what might and ought to be done by a civil posse, if a civil posse could be raised large enough to meet the same opposition. On such occasions, especially, the military power must be kept in strict subordination to the civil authority, since it is only in aid of the latter that the former can act at all.

"But what if the feeling in any State against the United States should become so universal that the Federal officers themselves (including judges, district attorneys, and marshals) would be reached by the same influences, and resign their places? Of course, the first step would be to appoint others in their stead, if others could be got to serve. But in such an event, it is more than probable that great difficulty would be found in filling the offices. We can easily conceive how it might become altogether impossible. We are therefore obliged to consider what can be done in case we have no courts to issue judicial process, and no ministerial officers to execute it. In that event troops would certainly be out of place, and their use wholly illegal. If they are sent to aid the courts and marshals, there must be courts and marshals to be aided. Without the exercise of those functions which belong exclusively to the civil service, the laws cannot be executed in any event, no matter what may be the physical strength which the Government has at its command. Under such circumstances to send a military force into any State, with orders to act against the people, would be simply making war upon them.

"The existing laws put and keep the Federal Government strictly on the defensive. You can use force only to repel an assault on the public property and aid the Courts in the performance of their duty. If the means given you to collect the revenue and execute the other laws be insufficient for that purpose, Congress may extend and make them more effectual to those ends.

"If one of the States should declare her independence, your action cannot depend on the rightfulness of the cause upon which such declaration is based. Whether the retirement of the State from the Union be the exercise of a right reserved in the Constitution, or a revolutionary movement, it is certain that you have not in either case the authority to recognize her independence or to absolve her from her Federal obligations. Congress, or the other States in Convention assembled, must take such measures as may be necessary and proper. In such an event, I see no course for you but to go straight onward in the path you have hitherto trodden — that is, execute the laws to the extent of the defensive means placed in your hands, and act generally upon the assumption that the present constitutional relations between the States and the Federal Gevernment continue to exist, until a new code of things shall be established either by law or force.

"Whether Congress has the constitutionsal right to make war against one or more States, and require the Executive of the Federal Government to carry it on by means of force to be drawn from the other States, is a question for Congress itself to consider. It must be admitted that no such power is expressly given; nor are there any words in the Constitution which imply it. Among the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 is that 'to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water.' This certainly means nothing more than the power to commence and carry on hostilities against the foreign enemies of the nation. Another clause in the same section gives Congress the power 'to provide for calling forth the militia,' and to use them within the limits of the State. But this power is so restricted by the words which immediately follow that it can be exercised only for one of the following purposes:

To execute the laws of the Union; that is, to aid the Federal officers in the performance of their regular duties.

To suppress insurrections against the State; but this is confined by Article 4, Section 4, to cases in which the State herself shall apply for assistance against her own people.

To repel the invasion of a State by enemies who come from abroad to assail her in her own territory.

All these provisions are made to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve the peace, and not to plunge them into civil war. Our forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated 'to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, that military force would not only be useless, but pernicious, as a means of holding the States together.

"If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would be ipso facto an expulsion of such State from the Union. Being treated as an alien and an enemy, she would be compelled to act accordingly. And if Congress shall break up the present Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquillity which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?

"The right of the General Government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional vigor by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its officers cannot by denied. But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State Government, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme. The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest, and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.

"If this view of the subject be correct, as I think it is, then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the General Government in the exercise of its proper constitutional functions.

"I am, very respectfully, yours, etc.,

"J. S. BLACK."

But if Texas goes blue, rural Texas, too, will comply with the law, one way or the other. There will be no strategic depth in the country, by that point, to be able to resist.

And here's the thing, the country doesn't HAVE to go Blue, but it will unless the Red get smart and reasonable. The whole reassertion of white race consciousness, etc, is not the way.

Of course, no band of unorganized militia in the woods will be able to resist an offensive by units of real armed forces. That would be more lopsided than the Mother of All Wars waged one weekend on the way to Baghdad.

The real danger is that a military base, or a state or combination of states, with the military units therein, join in an uprising. The military force available, if different sectors of America deploy it against each other, could cause a Mutually Assured Destruction standoff, if we are lucky.

Politically, the great mass of Democrats and Republicans are not radicals. Radical Republicans say all Democrats are evil, while Radical Democrats say all Republicans are evil. They are both wrong. But the most vocal groups are the radicals who will shout down their own for expressing a thought considered too moderate. As a nation, we are headed for trouble.

The parties have litmus tests, for example Democrats must be pro-choice, and Republicans must be anti-abortion. As an adjunct, judicial nominees must lie that they have no opinion in order to keep from getting Borked.

By all metrics, Trump is doing a slam bang job. But then the radical side of the Dems is driving an impeachment campaign because they cannot win an election campaign.

Both sides need to awaken. The two parties are like the NFC and the AFC. They battle it out n the regular season, then the playoffs, to each crown a champion to go to the Super Bowl and determine who is the grand champion. The NFL is like the deep state. Whether the NFC or the AFC wins, the NFL always wins by pitting the NFC and its fans, against the AFC and its fans. Behind the scenes, the NFL wields the levers of power, and cash in.

Did the people choose to nominate John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, or John McCain? In the case of Hillary Clinton, we know darn well that the process was rigged to freeze out Bernie Sanders and deliver the nomination to Hillary Clinton. CNN gave questions to Hillary before a debate.

Donald Trump unexpectedly (to some or many) got elected, and has succeeded with the economy beyond expectations. However, he is not a member of the club.

Race is whored politically as a wedge issue to divide people. It is not one sided, involving only advocacy for white supremacy. The Dems have a horde of race pimps who use the issue to enrich themselves. All lives matter are fighting words.

How to end all this crap is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps a solution may be to let Trump continue to stoke the economy and create a larger, complacent middle class. Radical action depends on misery and anger.

You're not center. You are left. What you consider right is center. What you consider extreme right is right.

In general, I agree with the laws of the USA as they are currently constituted, and with the governmental and military posture of the USA. The proposals from the Republicans, and the Democrats, to significantly alter the laws and the posture of government do not appeal to me: where we are - the existing status quo - suits me well. I think we have found a good compromise position - the "sweet spot", as it were - and I generally resist the Right and the Left when they want to careen off into crazy land in ways that will upset the status quo. I am concerned with making the status quo BETTER, more effective, more efficient. I am not interested in any major structural changes to anything important - not the military posture, not the tax codes, not the regulatory structure, not the welfare state, not the general structure of public services. I think it all works about as well as people are ever going to get, and that both sides propose things that are impracticable, expensive and that probably will function poorly.

If a determination to preserve the status-quo against left AND right is not center, then I don't know what is.

Truth is, Black's opinion would have blocked Lincoln from doing exactly what he did: mobilize the various state militias of the Union to create a "Grand Army of the Republic", which then went on to conquer and subjugate the seceding South.

What Black wrote at the end "The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest, and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected", was essentially true in 1860. The Civil War established a new national relationship, and demonstrated that states cannot secede from the Union unless they can win their independence in battle (good luck with that).

That seems reasonable to me. When people think they can just get out of something if they don't like it, they are prone to act that way. When they realize that there is no escape no matter what, they are more inclined, I believe, to work together for mutual benefit even if they can't stand each other, because the only other option is to suffer in the muck together.

then I don't know what is.

I agree. You don't know.

Truth is, Black's opinion would have blocked Lincoln from doing exactly what he did: mobilize the various state militias of the Union to create a "Grand Army of the Republic", which then went on to conquer and subjugate the seceding South.

You opposed the American revolution too right. Or are you inconsistent?

I think you are flopping in the wind inconsistent.

I also think you are a generally ok guy.

However, once the British turned the Indians loose on settlers on the frontier, they lost their moral authority to rule, and the Revolution became legitimate.

The firing on Fort Sumter and the military actions taken by the South to forcibly secede from the Union were wholly illegitimate from the get go.

Of course, the actions Lincoln took to preserve the Union were unconstitutional, but they were morally justified.

Truth is, Black's opinion would have blocked Lincoln from doing exactly what he did: mobilize the various state militias of the Union to create a "Grand Army of the Republic", which then went on to conquer and subjugate the seceding South.

Nah. Lincoln acted upon a civil disturbance to collect the tax revenue.

The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol IV, The Abraham Lincoln Association, Springfield, Illinois, edited by Roy P. Basler, Rutgets University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey (1953), pp. 331-32

Proclamation Calling Militia and Convening Congress

April 15, 1861

By the President of the United States

A Proclamation.

Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law,

Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details, for this object, will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.

I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to re-possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.

And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.

Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at 12 o'clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July, next, then and there to consider and determine, such measures, as, in their wisdom, the public safety, and interest may seem to demand.

In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this fifteenth day of April in the year of our Lord One thousand, Eight hundred and Sixty-one, and of the Independence of the United States the Eighty-fifth.

[L.S.]

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

By the President

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

What "laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed?"

Who are "persons composing the combinations aforesaid?" Within 20 days, they are "to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes" from where, doing what?

Let us look to the next proclamation of April 19, 1861 to find answers.

The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol IV, The Abraham Lincoln Association, Springfield, Illinois, edited by Roy P. Basler, Rutgets University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey (1953), pp. 338-39.

Proclamation of a Blockade

April 19, 1861

By the President of the United States of America:

A Proclamation.

Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States:

And whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection, have threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas, and in waters of the United States: And whereas an Executive Proclamation has been already issued, requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, and convening Congress in extraordinary session, to deliberate and determine thereon:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, with a view to the same purposes before mentioned, and to the protection of the public peace, and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have assembled and deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings, or until the same shall have ceased, have further deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and of the law of Nations, in such case provided. For this purpose a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach, or shall attempt to leave either of the said ports, she will be duly warned by the Commander of one of the blockading vessels, who will endorse on her register the fact and date of such warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port, she will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port, for such proceedings against her and her cargo as prize, as may be deemed advisable.

And I hereby proclaim and declare that if any person, under the pretended authority of the said States, or under any other pretense, shall molest a vessel of the United States, or the persons or cargo on board of her, such person will be held amenable to the laws of the United States for the prevention and punishment of piracy.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this nineteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.

[L.S.]

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State

It was the Great Civil Disturbance, where the troops were sent marching South to support there the non-existent Federal marshals of the non-existent Federal courts, and thereby imbued the troops with the authority of the Marshals.

After the war, precise start and end dates of the war were needed to calculate whether certain time limitations had tolled for insurance purposes. It started with the proclamation of a blockade. The proclamation was sort of a mistake as it was an international act of war. It led to a spate of declarations of neutrality by European nations. The domestic act is a closing of the ports. Lincoln converted it to a closing of the ports on April 11, 1865, days before his death. Internationally, a blockade meant that the Confederacy was recognized as a belligerent power.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep079700/

https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep079/usrep079700/usrep079700.pdf

U.S. Supreme Court

THE PROTECTOR, 78 U.S. 82 (1870)

78 U.S. 82 (Wall.)

1. The beginning and termination of the late rebellion in reference to acts of limitation, is to be determined by some public act of the political department.

2. The war did not begin or close at the same time in all the States.

3. Its commencement in certain States will be referred to the first proclamation, of blockade embracing them, and made on the 19th April, 1861; and as to other States to the second proclamation of blockade embracing them, and made on the 27th April, 1861.

4. Its termination as to certain States will be referred to the proclamation of the 2d April, 1866, declaring that the war had closed in those States, and as to Texas to the proclamation of the 20th August, 1866, declaring it bad closed in that State also.

5. Alabama was one of the States named in the first proclamation of blockade, and the first proclamation as to the termination of the war.

6. Accordingly an appeal from a decree by the Circuit Court of Alabama of the 6th April, 1861, which was flied in the clerk's office on the 17th May, 1871, was dismissed; it being held on the principles above stated, that more than five years had elapsed between the date of the decree and the filing of the appeal, allowing the suspension of the time produced by the war.

The Civil War established a new national relationship, and demonstrated that states cannot secede from the Union unless they can win their independence in battle (good luck with that).

SCOTUS did observe,

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States.

Mightily inconvenient to all that is the indisputable historical fact that, under the Articles of Confederation, a declared perpetual union was formed, there were thirteen (13) states in the Union, and when George Washington was inaugurated, there were eleven (11) states in the Union. The impossible happened.

The Congressional Register I, and the history therein, leave absolutely no doubt that Rhode Island and North Carolina were not members of the constitutional union for some time after it was created. In Rhode Island's case, it was more than a year. History seems to dispute indissolubility, but SCOTUS said it, and it has been the law ever since. For that kind of writing, they even put the Chief Justice on a $10,000 bill and named a bank after him.

The 14th Amendment flipped the relationship of the states and the federal government upside down. One of the basic markers of sovereignty is self-determination, and the 14th told the States who were citizens of the States. It is hard to be a truly sovereign State when a higher power decides who is a citizen of the State.

Officially the War of the Rebellion, (a/k/a The Civil War, The War of Northern Aggression, The War for Southern Independence, The War Between the States), is a judicial delight and a never ending foodfight on various websites.

Of course, I was a career Navy man before I was a lawyer, and it's plain as day that the South was conquered, occupied, and not allowed to vote on its own governance again until it acceded, under force, to constitutional amendments that the bulk of its people opposed. Might, not law, made right.

Interesting that, from a legal perspective, the declaration of the blockade was a mistake. From a military perspective, it was necessary. As you note, it created some legal inconveniences, particularly with respect to England and France. But once again, might made right, and the American capacity to directly threaten English interests (Canada was indefensible were the British to enter an actual shooting war with the USA) was sufficient to keep the British from intervening to benefit the "sovereign belligerent" Southern states (made so by the blockade).

To my military eyes, Lincoln did what was expedient and necessary - the legal justifications were put together to hang a paper mache fig leaf over it, but WHATEVER was necessary, Lincoln was going to do, and some legal justification would be ginned up to cover it. The law is endlessly malleable,anybody can make an argument, and, to quote John Marshall, "Conquest grants a title which the courts of the conqueror are bound to respect." In Lincoln's case, we might add "....or else."

Because the outcome is the one I prefer, I am happy to allow the legal justifications as put together to stand, but I don't really believe it. To my eyes, the Civil War was the failure of the original US Constitution, that some of the forms and norms were respected during the war, but the USA really was akin to a military dictatorship during and after the war, at least in half the country, and that that degree of unconstitutional force was absolutely necessary to reconquer the South.

The blockade, for example, could not be foregone awaiting Union recapture and closing of the Southern ports, for a resupplied South may well have been able to successfully win a war of attrition with the Union. Preserving the unity of the country was more important than respecting the Constitution, in my view, and I don't believe we DID respect the Constitution to win that war. Of course, I recognise that many legalists need to believe we did, to maintain the continuity of their belief systems, so they will fight to the end to find ways to show the constitutionality of everything the Union did.

That's why there will be endless churn in those legal chat boards about the Civil War. It's also why I won't go there. To me, it's obvious that the Union did what it took to defeat the South, and what it took exceeded the limits of the original Constitution. Of course, that does not bother me, being a pragmatist. I understand why legalists cannot accept that and fight on. It makes no difference to me, but to them, it's crucial to their belief system. Sort of like Catholics and infallibility. - for some, that the Church never changed any doctrine is fundamental to their belief, and they never will admit the changes, recharacterising them as necessary to maintain the purity they insist exists (when it obviously doesn't, to others).

Of course, I was a career Navy man before I was a lawyer, and it's plain as day that the South was conquered, occupied, and not allowed to vote on its own governance again until it acceded, under force, to constitutional amendments that the bulk of its people opposed. Might, not law, made right.

That is why the 14th amendment isn't a real amendment according to the constitution.

You like lies and deception. It is the way you read the Bible. You like adding to scripture and tearing out pages of gods word and burning them in the fire and pretending they never existed.

You pretend about the constitution and pretend that what some guy in a black robe says is automatically true. You like authority figures. You are a follower not a leader. Kind of a lemming.

Yes I know that what chan says is they way it is working right now. But there is no reason to pretend that they are following the constitution or being truthful about the powers that were delegated to them. Deceiving and being deceived.

That is why the 14th amendment isn't a real amendment according to the constitution.

As critical as I may be of it's mode of ratification, the 14th amendment is most certainly a real amendment.

Certifying an amendment is a political act. Once the Secretary of State officially confirms that the required three-fourths of the States have ratified an Amendment, it is a real Amendment.

Not only is it real, but it cannot be challenged in Court. SCOTUS has ruled that it has no jurisdiction to look behind the legislative branch at its procedures. It is a political question and not subject to judicial review.

Secretary of State Seward officially proclaimed:

Now therefor, be it known that I, William H. Seward, Secretary of State of the United States, in execution of the aforesaid act, and of the aforesaid concurrent resolution of the 21st of July, 1868, and in conformity thereto, do hereby direct the said proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States to be published in the newspapers authorized to promulgate the laws of the United States, and I do hereby certify that the proposed amendment has been adopted in the manner hereinbefore mentioned by the States thus specified being more than three-fourths of the States of the United States.

And I do further certify that the said amendment has become valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the United States.

United States Statutes at Large, 15:708

That is the end of the argument of whether the 14th Amendment is a real amendment.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep307433/

https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep307/usrep307433/usrep307433.pdf

Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939)

Syllabus.

COLEMAN et al. v. MILLER, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF KANSAS, et al.

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.

No. 7. Argued October 10, 1938. Reargued April 17, 18, 1939.— Decided June 5, 1939.

1. Upon submission of a resolution for ratification of a proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution, known as the Child Labor Amendment, twenty of the forty senators of the State of Kansas voted in favor of its adoption and twenty voted against it. The Lieutenant Governor, the presiding officer of the Senate, then cast his vote in favor of the resolution, and later it was adopted by the other house of the legislature on a vote of a majority of its members. The twenty senators who had voted against ratification, challenging the right of the Lieutenant Governor to cast the decid­ing vote in the Senate, and alleging that the proposed amendment had lost its vitality because of previous rejection by Kansas and other States and failure of ratification within a reasonable time, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary of the Senate to erase an endorsement on the resolution, to the effect that it had been adopted by the Senate, and to endorse thereon the words “was not passed,” and to restrain the officers of the Senate and House of Representatives from signing the resolution and the Sec­retary of State of Kansas from authenticating it and delivering it to the Governor. The State entered its appearance and the State Supreme Court entertained the action, sustained the right of the plaintiffs to maintain it, but overruled their contentions, upheld the ratification, and denied the writ. Held:

(1) The questions decided were federal questions, arising under Article V of the Constitution. P. 437.

(2) The complaining senators, whose votes against ratification have been overridden and virtually held for naught, although if they are right in their contentions their votes would have been sufficient to defeat ratification, have a plain, direct and adequate interest in maintaining the effectiveness of their votes. They have set up and claimed a right and privilege under the Constitution of the United States to have their votes given effect and the state court has denied that right and privilege. P. 438.

(3) This Court has jurisdiction to review the decision of the state court by certiorari, under Jud. Code § 237 (b). P. 438.

307 U.S. 434

2. The Court being equally divided in opinion as to whether the question presents a justiciable controversy, or is a political ques­tion, expresses no opinion upon a contention that the Lieutenant Governor of Kansas was not a part of the “legislature,” and under Article V of the Federal Constitution could not be permitted a deciding vote on the ratification of the proposed amendment. P. 446.

3. In accordance with the precedent of the Fourteenth Amendment, the efficacy of ratification of a proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution by a state legislature which had previously rejected the proposal, is held a question for the political depart­ments, with the ultimate authority in the Congress in the exer­cise of its control over the promulgation of the adoption of the amendment. P. 447.

4. The legislature of Kansas having actually ratified the proposed Child Labor Amendment, this Court should not restrain the state officers from certifying the ratification to the Secretary of State, because of an earlier rejection, and thus prevent the question from coming before the political departments. There is found no basis in either Constitution or statute for such judicial action. P. 450.

5. R. S. § 205; 5 U. S. C. 160, presupposes official notice to the Sec­retary of State when a state legislature has adopted a resolution of ratification. No warrant is seen for judicial interference with the performance of that duty. P. 450.

6. The Congress in controlling the promulgation of the adoption of a constitutional amendment has the final determination of the question whether by lapse of time its proposal of the amendment had lost its vitality before being adopted by the requisite number of legislatures. P. 451.

7. In determining whether a question falls within the category of political, non-justiciable questions, the appropriateness under our system of government of attributing finality to the action of the political departments, and also the lack of satisfactory criteria for a judicial determination, are dominant considerations. P. 454.

146 Kan. 390; 71 P. 2d 518, reversed.

Certiorari, 303 U. S. 632, to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Kansas denying a writ of mandamus, applied for in that court by senators of the State and members of its House of Representatives for the purpose of compelling the Secretary of the Senate to erase an en­dorsement purporting to show that a resolution for the

307 U.S. 435

ratification of a proposal to amend the Federal Constitu­tion had passed the Senate, and to restrain the officers of the Senate and the other house of the legislature from signing the resolution and the Secretary of State of Kan­sas from authenticating it and delivering it to the Governor.

Messrs. Robert Stone and Rolla W. Coleman, on the reargument and on the original argument, for petitioners.

Mr. Clarence V. Beck on the reargument, and with Mr. E. R. Sloan on the original argument, for respondents.

By special leave of Court, Solicitor General Jackson, with whom Mr. Paul A. Freund was on the brief, argued the case on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance.

By leave of Court, Messrs. Orland S. Loomis, Attorney General of Wisconsin, Mortimer Levitan and Newell S. Boardman, Assistant Attorneys General, filed a brief on behalf of that State, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance.

Opinion of the Court by Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, announced by Mr. Justice Stone.

[...]

See also:

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep258126/

https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep258/usrep258126/usrep258126.pdf

Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 US 126 (1922)

FAIRCHILD v. HUGHES, AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

No. 148. Argued January 23, 1922.—Decided February 27, 1922.

The general right of a citizen to have the government administered according to law and the public moneys not wasted does not en­title him to institute in the federal courts a suit to secure by in­direction a determination whether a statute, if passed, or a con­stitutional amendment about to be adopted, will be valid. P. 129. Constitution. P. 129.

Affirmed.

1. Appeal from a decree of the court below affirming a de­cree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which dismissed a bill by which the appellant sought to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared unconstitu­tional and to enjoin the Secretary of State from proclaim­ing its ratification and the Attorney General from taking steps to enforce it.

2. Mr. William L. Marbury, and Mr. Thomas F. Cadwalader, with whom. Mr. Everett P. Wheeler and Mr. Waldo G. Morse were on the briefs, for appellant.

258 U.S. 127

Mr.-Solicitor General Beck, with whom Mr. Robert P. Reeder and Mr. W. Marvin Smith were on the brief, for appellees.

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the court.

On July 7, 1920, Charles S. Fairchild of New York brought this suit in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia against the Secretary of State and the At­torney General. The prayers of the bill are that “the so-called Suffrage Amendment [the Nineteenth to the Federal Constitution] be declared unconstitutional and void”; that the Secretary of State be restrained from issuing any proclamation declaring that it has been rati­fied; and that the Attorney General be restrained from enforcing it. There is also a prayer for general relief and for an interlocutory injunction. The plaintiff, and others on whose behalf he sues, are citizens of the United States, taxpayers and members of the American Constitutional League, a voluntary association which describes itself as engaged in diffusing “knowledge as to the fundamental principles of the American Constitution, and especially that which gives to each State the right to determine for itself the question as to who should exercise the elective franchise therein.”

The claim to relief was rested upon the following alle­gations. The legislatures of thirty-four of the States have passed resolutions purporting to ratify the Suffrage Amendment; and from one other State the Secretary of State of the United States has received a certificate to that effect purporting to come from the proper officer. The proposed Amendment cannot, for reasons stated, be made a part of the Constitution through ratification by the leg­islatures; and there are also specific reasons why the reso­lutions already adopted in several of the States are in­operative. But the Secretary has declarerd that he is

258 U.S. 128

without power to examine into the validity of alleged acts of ratification, and that, upon receiving from one additional State the customary certificate, he will issue a proclamation declaring that the Suffrage Amendment has been adopted. Furthermore, “a force bill” has been introduced in the Senate which provides fine and im­prisonment for any person who refuses to allow women to vote; and if the bill is enacted, the Attorney General will be required to enforce its provisions. The threatened proclamation of the adoption of the Amendment would not be conclusive of its validity, but it would lead election officers to permit women to vote in States whose constitu­tions limit suffrage to men. This would prevent ascer­tainment of the wishes of the legally qualified voters, and elections, state and federal, would be void. Free citizens would be deprived of their right to have such elections duly held; the effectiveness of their votes would be di­minished; and election expenses would be nearly doubled. Thus irremediable mischief would result.

The Supreme Court of the District granted a rule to show cause why an interlocutory injunction should not issue. The return was promptly made; and the defend­ants also moved to dismiss the bill. On July 14, 1920, the rule was discharged; a decree was entered dismissing the bill; and an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals of the District. The Secretary, having soon thereafter received a certificate of ratification from the thirty-sixth State, proclaimed, on August 26, 1920, the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment. The defendants then moved to dismiss or affirm. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decree on the authority of United States v. Colby, 49 App. D. C. 358; 265 Fed. 998, where it had refused to compel the Secretary to cancel the proclamation declar­ing that the Eighteenth Amendment had been adopted. The grounds of that decision were that the validity of the Amendment could be in no way affected by an order

258 U.S. 129

of cancellation; that it depended on the ratifications by the States and not on the proclamation; and that the proclamation was unimpeachable, since the Secretary was required, under Rev. Stats., § 205, to issue the proclama­tion upon receiving from three-fourths of the States of­ficial notice of ratification and had no power to determine whether or not the notices received stated the truth. But we have no occasion to consider these grounds of decision.

Plaintiff’s alleged interest in the question submitted is not such as to afford a basis for this proceeding. It is frankly a proceeding to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared void. In form it is a bill in equity; but it is not a case within the meaning of § 2 of Article III of the Con­stitution, which confers judicial power on the federal courts, for no claim of plaintiff is “brought before the court[s] for determination by such regular proceedings as are established by law or custom for the protection or enforcement of rights, or the prevention, redress, or punishment of wrongs.” See In re Pacific Railway Com­mission, 32 Fed. 241, 255, quoted in Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346, 356. The alleged wrongful act of the Secretary of State, said to be threatening, is the issuing of a proclamation which plaintiff asserts will be vain but will mislead election officers. The alleged wrong­ful act of the Attorney General, said to be threatening, is the enforcement, as against election officers, of the penalties to be imposed by a contemplated act of Congress which plaintiff asserts would be unconstitutional. But plaintiff is not an election officer; and the State of New York, of which he is a citizen, had previously amended its own constitution so as to grant the suffrage to women and had ratified this Amendment. Plaintiff has only the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Gov­ernment be administered according to law and that the public moneys be not wasted. Obviously this general right does not entitle a private citizen to institute in the

258 U.S. 130

federal courts a suit to secure by indirection a determina­tion whether a statute if passed, or a constitutional amendment about to be adopted, will be valid. Compare Giles v. Harris, 189 U. S. 475; Tyler v. Judges of Court of Registration 179 U. S. 405.

Decree affirmed.

Of course, I was a career Navy man before I was a lawyer, and it's plain as day that the South was conquered, occupied, and not allowed to vote on its own governance again until it acceded, under force, to constitutional amendments that the bulk of its people opposed. Might, not law, made right.

Acceded is one of those terms freighted with controversy in a Civil War discussion. It is the opposite of seceded, and a Confederate argument was that as they had acceded to the Union, they had exercised their right and had seceded from the Union. There were some serious and interesting arguments made for that while Jefferson Davis awaited a trial that never came. Davis had a Dream Team of attorneys who were very motivated to assist him. Due to the legally very questionable suspension of habeas corpus in Union territories, they had been unable to assist clients during the war. They were heavily quoting the Framers and Daniel Webster, the Great Expounder. The best Union lawyers, several teams of them, cautioned against a trial, lest they lose in court, what had been won during the war. Davis refused to accept a pardon, so a general pardon was issued covering everybody, including Davis and Lee.

Interesting that, from a legal perspective, the declaration of the blockade was a mistake. From a military perspective, it was necessary.

I don't think from a military perspective a declaration of a blockade was better than a declaration a closing of the ports. That essentially would have done the same thing as far as the military was concerned. It just would have been the United States sealing off United States ports rather than the ports of a belligerent power, the Confederate States. Legally, under international law, the Confederacy gained certain legal rights they would not otherwise had enjoyed.

A blockade effectively stated they were not United States ports. It is a bit messy when combined with the post-war argument that the Confederte states never left the Union at all.

But once again, might made right, and the American capacity to directly threaten English interests (Canada was indefensible were the British to enter an actual shooting war with the USA)...

The Union had its hands full. It did not really have another army to send to Canada. There was some consideration of an invasion at the end of the war, when there was an army to do it with, but saner minds prevailed.

To my military eyes, Lincoln did what was expedient and necessary - the legal justifications were put together to hang a paper mache fig leaf over it, but WHATEVER was necessary, Lincoln was going to do, and some legal justification would be ginned up to cover it.

In WW2, the government instituted internment under the guise of necessity and the Courts, as they do in wartime, approved. The post-Civil War opinion in Ex parte Milligan excoriated the supposed Law of Necessity. Post WW2, they were critical of internment. Inter arma enim silent leges.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep067635/

https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep067/usrep067635/usrep067635.pdf

The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635 (10 March 1863) nearly led to the war being held unconstitutional. It survived a 5-4 vote during the war.

The blockade, for example, could not be foregone awaiting Union recapture and closing of the Southern ports, for a resupplied South may well have been able to successfully win a war of attrition with the Union.

Perhaps we have a different concept of what a closing of the ports is.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/221

50 U.S. Code § 221. Closing ports of entry; forfeiture of vessels seeking to enter closed port

Whenever, in any collection district, the duties on imports can not, in the judgment of the President, be collected in the ordinary way, nor in the manner provided by sections 218 [1] to 220 of this title, by reason of the cause mentioned in section 218 of this title, the President may close the port of entry in that district; and shall in such case give notice thereof by proclamation. And thereupon all right of importation, warehousing, and other privileges incident to ports of entry shall cease and be discontinued at such port so closed until it is opened by the order of the President on the cessation of such obstructions. Every vessel from beyond the United States, or having on board any merchandise liable to duty, which attempts to enter any port which has been closed under this section, shall, with her tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, be forfeited.

(R.S. § 5317.)

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Blockade. Action taken against enemy nation so as to isolate, obstruct and prevent communications, commerce, supplies, and persons from entering into or leaving such nation. Such blockades may be by sea, or land, or both.

A nation cannot blockade itself. It requires an enemy nation (or recognized belligerent power), and that requires a state of war. In The Prize Cases, Juscice Nelson wrote a dissenting opinion which was joined by Chief Justice Taney and Justices Catron and Clifford, and concluded at 67 U.S. 698-99:

Upon the whole, after the most careful consideration of this case which the pressure of other duties has admitted, I am compelled to the conclusion that no civil war existed between this Government and the States in insurrection till recognized by the Act of Congress 13th of July, 1861; that the President does not possess the power under the Constitution to declare war or recognize its existence within the meaning of the law of nations, which carries with it belligerent rights, and thus change the country and all its citizens from a state of peace to a state of war; that this power belongs exclusively to the Congress of the United States, and, consequently, that the President had no power to set on foot a blockade under the law of nations, and that the capture of the vessel and cargo in this case, and in all cases before us in which the capture occurred before the 13th of July, 1861, for breach of blockade, or as enemies' property, are illegal and void, and that the decrees of condemnation should be reversed and the vessel and cargo restored.

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY, Mr. Justice CATRON and Mr. Justice CLIFFORD, concurred in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Nelson.

President Lincoln went on to pack the court with a tenth justice to insure against legal catastrophe.

That's why there will be endless churn in those legal chat boards about the Civil War. It's also why I won't go there. To me, it's obvious that the Union did what it took to defeat the South, and what it took exceeded the limits of the original Constitution.

I was in the endless churn about 15 to 20 years ago. I agree with your assessment. I disagree with those who argue that everything St. Abraham did was proper and lawful.

To my eyes, the problem with just "closing the ports" was that the ports wouldn't really close at all. Only warships blocking the port and seising foreign vessels could do that. And that's a blockade, no matter what one chooses to call it.

Elsewhere on these boards, there's someone egging on the idea of a new civil war in Virginia over the question of gun registration. It's as though the author WANTS that test of power, between the "armed people" and the government.

For my part, I pray that never comes, but if it does, there is no doubt in my mind that the government will win it, and the precedents set will be very bad for everybody. We've seen this movie before.

The best choice is to put forth the political effort to PERSUADE the majority to change its mind.

Or they could hold their breath and stomp their feet.

The voters have spoken and there's nothing to stop them. At one time the second amendment would have protected these weapons but, you know, Heller.

At one time the second amendment would have protected these weapons but, you know, Heller.

It's not Heller, or the courts, or the Second Amendment.

It's the endless parade of school massacres, and workplace massacres, and public massacres, movie theater massacres.

The grief and loss from such incidents is unbelievable, and it is experienced by huge and growing numbers of people and communities.

Those people, perhaps naively, perhaps not, look at the ready availability of firearms in America, and at the stresses of modern Americans, and the drugs, and the general craziness, and decide that it is time for guns to be restricted.

Old precedent isn't going to preserve gun rights. Somebody has to propose something that actually WORKS to bring down the shootings, and point out that it works (because the massacres stop). Nobody does. So the only proposal out there is to restrict guns (which certainly seems to work in Europe and Canada to reduce massacres and their frequency).

Somebody has to propose something that actually WORKS to bring down the shootings, and point out that it works (because the massacres stop).

The West Freeway Church of Christ provides the answer. When people start shooting back, the massacres will stop.

That church shooter in Texas had a shotgun. How would Virginia's law stop that?

We've seen this movie before.

Good sir, but for the fact that a vocal and militant minority abjured such - temperate - sentiments, this nation would not exist.

Firearms of all kinds are flying off the shelves in most locations in the State of Virginia, and it's plain that residents of that state will not allow this shit to stand all pettifoggery aside.

One of the best comments I've seen appear this new year is up on WND today:

Amadio Viviani • 4 hours ago • edited Democrats have become anti-American in every aspect.

They adhere to a philosophy of failure, they crave power, they promote ignorance, they reject truths & provocate blame, victim hood and envy. It's inherent result is the equal sharing of misery and the responsibility to someone else.

Thank God for a real Patriot in President Trump.

Good sir, but for the fact that a vocal and militant minority abjured such - temperate - sentiments, this nation would not exist.

Let me correct your statement to be historically accurate: "Good sir, but for the fact that a vocal and militant minority abjured such - temperate - sentiments, and the French Navy, this nation would not exist."

So, if Virginia goes into Civil War, who will be the French Navy to the rebels? Perhaps Iran?

Somebody has to propose something that actually WORKS to bring down the shootings, and point out that it works (because the massacres stop).

The West Freeway Church of Christ provides the answer. When people start shooting back, the massacres will stop.

That church shooter in Texas had a shotgun. How would Virginia's law stop that?

It must be one of those two times a day.

Ultimately, given that we live in a country that is going mad, and we have massacres all the time, the best way to stop the killers is to shoot them. I doubt anything else will really work, especially not when so many people are drug-addled.

I don't think that is going to persuade those who want to suppress guns, so there needs to be wide publication of each case in which a trained civilian armed with a gun STOPPED a killing or a rape or another violent crime. That needs to be pressed onto the news daily.

Otherwise, the legislation such as is being proposed in Virginia will become law, and as it does, all of those bad consequences I would rather avoid may come to pass.

You have to win this fight at the ballot box.

When people like Bloomberg can pour huge amounts of money into a campaign, thanks to a court decision called "Citizen's United", and the media is more concentrated than ever thanks to the imposition of the media promoted phony "Nash Equilibrium" on the radio frequency spectrum auction, and voting machines are black boxes controlled by a few corporations, then the electoral system is broken. We now have endless foreign wars and a relentless erosion of freedom at home.

You can stuff your ballot box. The rule of law is not majority rule, it's adherence to the foundation of law crafted to protect natural rights.

Certifying an amendment is a political act. Once the Secretary of State officially confirms that the required three-fourths of the States have ratified an Amendment, it is a real Amendment.

Now for the truth. What you said isn't constitutional and is a usurpation The constitution actually says it is determined by states voting on it. The constitution also says no state shall be denied their equal suffrage in the Senate. Putting puppets in the Senate And having some secretary of state proclaim it isn't the way it is supposed to work. Why do you support lies? Sure they have the power and we have to obey. But I dont understand why someone with your intelligence pretends it meets the clear definitions in the easy to understand constitution.

Taney's opinion is another example of a Supreme Court decision that was ignored by Lincoln. Unlawful and necessary.

Taney???

Assuming you speak of the Prize Cases, that was Nelson writing a dissenting opinion which was joined by Taney plus two more. Lincoln did not exactly ignore the close scare but packed the court with a tenth justice, making five Lincoln appointees. It is the only time we have had ten justices on the Supreme Court.

Elsewhere on these boards, there's someone egging on the idea of a new civil war in Virginia over the question of gun registration. It's as though the author WANTS that test of power, between the "armed people" and the government.

That's political pandering to both fringes.

For my part, I pray that never comes, but if it does, there is no doubt in my mind that the government will win it, and the precedents set will be very bad for everybody. We've seen this movie before.

If there be another war, and if it should break down with a seperation of the military taking sides by region, there is more than adequate power to destroy each other. It would be like the civil war with immensely greater power. All would lose, or all would refrain from fighting.

Now for the truth. What you said isn't constitutional and is a usurpation The constitution actually says it is determined by states voting on it. The constitution also says no state shall be denied their equal suffrage in the Senate. Putting puppets in the Senate And having some secretary of state proclaim it isn't the way it is supposed to work. Why do you support lies?

At some point in the process, somebody must certify whether or not three-fourths of the states have ratified an amendment, and that decision must be final. Who do you propose makes the final decision?

As it stands, it is a political process and the Secretary of State has always been tasked with making the final decision of certifying what each state reports.

At one time the second amendment would have protected these weapons but, you know, Heller.

To be technical, McDonald. Heller only applied to the District of Columbia. McDonald followed Heller and expanded application to the States.

In Heller, only a D.C. law was at issue. The Court did not incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the States, as no State issue was involved. In McDonald, the Court fully incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the States.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 08-1521

Otis Mcdonald, et al., petitioners
v.
City of CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

[June 28, 2010]

JUSTICE ALITO announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, II-B, II-D, III-A, and III-B, in which THE Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas join, and an opinion with respect to Parts II-C, IV, and V, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy join.

Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. _ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. The city of Chicago (City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws that are similar to the District of Columbia's, but Chicago and Oak Park argue that their laws are constitutional because the Second Amendment has no application to the States. We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.

Who do you propose makes the final decision?

I propose the senators make that decision when they vote on it. Putting puppets in to vote isn't the way it is supposed to work. The Southern States were denied their equal suffrage in the Senate. Even though they had legitimately passed the 13th. The Southern Senators wouldn't pass the 14th so the north had puppets put in.

That is illegitimate. Something like Maduro would do.

To be technical, McDonald. Heller only applied to the District of Columbia. McDonald followed Heller and expanded application to the States.

I referred to Heller because Heller defined the weapons protected by the second amendment. And they didn't include dangerous and unusual weapons not in common use.

"Handguns used for self-defense in the home" was what I remenber.

Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.

So the second amendment protection of a handgun kept for self-defense in the home is now "fully applicable" to the states. Oh, I feel so safe now that this very limited protection is fully applicable.

"Handguns used for self-defense in the home" was what I remenber.

Well, duhhhhh.

Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

What did you expect, a ruling on machine guns and atomic bombs?

So the second amendment protection of a handgun kept for self-defense in the home is now "fully applicable" to the states. Oh, I feel so safe now that this very limited protection is fully applicable.

Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

The ruling pertained to handguns because the statute in question pertained to handguns.

I propose the senators make that decision when they vote on it.

Who is going to certify that three-fourths of the states have ratified an amendment?

Who do the individual states tell that they have ratified?

The ruling pertained to handguns because the statute in question pertained to handguns.

It went a little farther than that. Yes, the Heller court ruled that the second amendment protected handguns use for self-defense in the home.

But -- even though the statute DIDN'T pertain to it -- the court also ruled that the second amendment does not protect weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes or dangerous and unusual weapons.

Threw that in, didn't they?

What did you expect, a ruling on machine guns and atomic bombs?

How about a definition of "arms" as the Miller court provided?

I mean, the Heller court was eager to point out the types of weapons NOT protected by the second amendment -- those not typically possessed by law- abiding citizens for lawful purposes or dangerous and unusual weapons -- even though the statute never mentions them.

Who is going to certify that three-fourths of the states have ratified an amendment?
Who do the individual states tell that they have ratified?

The Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process.

"The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation."

How about a definition of "arms" as the Miller court provided?

Heller

The Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process.

That seems too simple. Dig just a bit deeper and find the mass confusion.

The role of the archivist is a purely ministerial duty.

Courts have held that the archivist does not have authority to review claims alleging improper ratification of an amendment by a state.

U.S. ex. rel. Widenmann v. Colby. In 1920, a challenge to the adoption of the 18th amendment (prohibition) included claims that at least one state ratification was improperly submitted to the secretary of state, who was then responsible for administering the ratification process for the federal government.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the responsibility of the secretary of state was “purely ministerial” and did not allow for the investigation of claims of impropriety by the states. According to the court:

The secretary was not required, nor authorized, to investigate and determine whether or not the notices stated the truth. To accept them as doing so, if in due form, was his duty. As soon as he had received the notices from 36 of the states that the amendment had been adopted, he was obliged, under the statute, to put forth his proclamation. No discretion was lodged in him."

Leser v. Garnett. In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a challenge to the proper ratification of the 19th amendment (women's suffrage) by the states of Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia on grounds similar to the claims in Colby. In rejecting the challenge, the Court noted that, “[t]he proclamation by the secretary of state certified that from official documents on file in the Department of State it appeared that the proposed amendment was ratified by the legislatures of 36 states.. ,” and that as each ratifying state “had power to adopt the resolutions of ratification, official notice to the Secretary, duly authenticated, that they had done so, was conclusive upon him.”

U.S. v. Sitka. In 1988, a challenge to the proper ratification of the 16th amendment (income tax) was filed by a taxpayer who was indicted on several counts for failure to file income tax returns. The taxpayer challenged the authority of the secretary of state to certify ratifications as an unconstitutional delegation of power from the legislative branch to the executive branch, and a violation of separation of powers principles.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the challenge, holding that the authority of the secretary of state to certify ratification was “purely ministerial; it could not and did not affect the process of ratification itself, which is self-executing upon completion.”

Amendments are effective upon ratification by three-fourths of states, not upon the proclamation of the archivist.

The effective date of an amendment that has been ratified by the states is not contingent upon final certification by the archivist, or any other federal official: according to Article V, an amendment is effective and in full force as of the time it has received a sufficient number of state ratifications to be adopted.

Dillon v. Gloss. In 1921, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the effective date of the 18th amendment (prohibition): an individual was convicted of violating its provisions (and associated implementing laws), which became effective one year following ratification of the amendment. The violations occurred one day and one year after a sufficient number of states had ratified the amendment, but before the secretary of state formally proclaimed the amendment's ratification.

The Court held that proclamation of the amendment's adoption “is not material, for the date of its consummation, and not that on which it is proclaimed, controls.”