Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

limbicnuminousity

(1,409 posts)
44. Your assessment is astute.
Fri Feb 9, 2024, 03:24 PM
Feb 2024

I think we're going to be hearing a lot about the (mis)jurisprudence of Samuel P. Chase in the editorials and funny sections.

Random bits from the wiki on Chase:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon_P._Chase

Perhaps Chase's chief defect was an insatiable desire for high office.[30] Throughout his term as Treasury Secretary, Chase exploited his position to build up political support for another run at the presidency in 1864. Benjamin Wade, a Republican commented: "Chase is a good man but his theology is unsound. He thinks there is a fourth person in the Trinity."[31]

To honor Chase for introducing the modern system of banknotes, he was depicted on the $10,000 bill printed from 1928 to 1946. Chase was instrumental in placing the phrase "In God We Trust" on United States coins in 1[864.[33]

For his defense of people arrested in Ohio under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, Chase was dubbed the "Attorney General for Fugitive Slaves."[12] His argument in the case of Jones v. Van Zandt on the constitutionality of fugitive slave laws before the U.S. Supreme Court attracted particular attention. Chase contended that slavery was local, not national, and that it could exist only by virtue of positive state law. He argued that the federal government was not empowered by the Constitution to create slavery anywhere and that when an enslaved person leaves the jurisdiction of a state where slavery is legal, he ceases to be a slave; he continues to be a man and leaves behind the law that made him a slave. In this and similar cases, the court ruled against him, and the judgment against John Van Zandt was upheld.[citation needed]

As Chief Justice, Chase also presided at the impeachment trial of U.S. President Andrew Johnson in 1868. As the justice responsible for the 4th Circuit, Chase also would have been one of two judges at the trial of Jefferson Davis (who was imprisoned at Fort Monroe in Virginia), because trial for major crimes such as treason required two judges. However, Davis's best defense would be that he forfeited U.S. citizenship upon secession, and therefore could not have committed treason. Convicting Davis could also interfere with Chase's presidential ambitions, described below. After the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, Chase invited Davis's lawyer to meet with him privately, and explained his theory that Section 3 of the new Amendment prohibited imposing further punishment on former Confederates. When Davis's lawyer repeated this argument in open court, Chase dismissed the case, over the objection of his colleague, U.S. District Judge John Curtiss Underwood, and the government chose not to appeal the dismissal to the U.S. Supreme Court.[40]

Chase sought the Republican nomination for president in the 1860 presidential election, but the party chose Abraham Lincoln at its National Convention. After Lincoln won the election, he asked Chase to serve as Secretary of the Treasury. Chase served in that position from 1861 to 1864, working hard to ensure the Union was well-financed during the Civil War. Chase resigned from the Cabinet in June 1864, but retained support among the Radical Republicans. Partly to appease the Radical Republicans, Lincoln nominated Chase to fill the Supreme Court vacancy that arose following Chief Justice Roger Taney's death.


It boggles the mind that this one man did so much damage. The constitutional issues being addressed now are the remnants of issues that should have been resolved 150 years ago.

Chase's decisions are illustrative of the consistent moral terpitude which has characterized radical republicans for forever. His objection to slavery referred not to the Rights of Man but instead laid the foundation for originalists like Scalia by saying the Constitution doesn't explicitly give permission to enslave.

And then he turned around, cut Jeff Davis free and ignored the incompetence of the Johnson administration during Reconstruction. There are lessons to be learned there.





Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Billionaire class of sickos! Brainfodder Feb 2024 #1
I am not sure that is correct. Caliman73 Feb 2024 #2
There were plenty of judges that charged the insurrectionists Bluethroughu Feb 2024 #4
True. Caliman73 Feb 2024 #11
It does not say trump has to be charged or convicted of insurrection. Bluethroughu Feb 2024 #12
It actually does FBaggins Feb 2024 #27
Well...then do the other required qualifications Farmer-Rick Feb 2024 #35
Totally specious reasoning. NoRethugFriends Feb 2024 #7
No they are not. SCOTUS isn't making the decision... Caliman73 Feb 2024 #13
You get it. Fiendish Thingy Feb 2024 #9
Am curious whether there will be inconsistencies addressing the border issue. limbicnuminousity Feb 2024 #14
That has been a problem historically. Caliman73 Feb 2024 #17
Your assessment is astute. limbicnuminousity Feb 2024 #44
Border issues are complex. LeftInTX Feb 2024 #49
The orginal insurrectionists did not face court trials. GreenWave Feb 2024 #21
Original as in Civil War original? Caliman73 Feb 2024 #23
Agreed and I did mean the Civil war traitors. GreenWave Feb 2024 #37
Except they weren't barred from *running* for the office FBaggins Feb 2024 #46
Or it could be used to keep anybody they feel like jimfields33 Feb 2024 #3
You need proof of an insurrection, we have almost 24 hrs of documentation he created one. Bluethroughu Feb 2024 #5
No it couldn't NoRethugFriends Feb 2024 #6
The SC found nothing wrong with the Colorado decision? FBaggins Feb 2024 #47
In Colorado, there was a trial and appeal HariSeldon Feb 2024 #24
Their ruling, likely unanimous, will be more nuanced Fiendish Thingy Feb 2024 #8
Well the textualists will be legislating from the bench again. Bluethroughu Feb 2024 #10
It seems like SCOTUS's lame excuse is that they don't want some states using the 14th Amendment, sec. 3, to LaMouffette Feb 2024 #15
SCOTUS decisions are made when cases are brought to them. Caliman73 Feb 2024 #19
Thanks for clearing that up for me, Caliman73! I feel at this point that every American is an injured party from the LaMouffette Feb 2024 #50
Tell all the states that Trump carried out an insurrection and can't be on ANY ballots??? Polybius Feb 2024 #30
Federal and State judges convicted or kicked off people on ballots for insurrection Bluethroughu Feb 2024 #36
In Trump's Colorado case, it was the state SC upholding it Polybius Feb 2024 #42
Overly dramatic, IMHO RussBLib Feb 2024 #16
It's not about our ability to beat him at the ballot box Bluethroughu Feb 2024 #18
If they were a convicted traitor, no RussBLib Feb 2024 #20
Impeachment is removal from office, he is not in office. Bluethroughu Feb 2024 #38
The SC is bought and paid for. rubbersole Feb 2024 #22
I hope you are right. Bluethroughu Feb 2024 #39
I put this squarely on McConnell relayerbob Feb 2024 #25
If the SCOTUS votes to keep TFG on the ballot... William Seger Feb 2024 #26
My (barely informed) opinion is they will keep him on the ballot and not by a 6-3 decision. Perhaps kelly1mm Feb 2024 #28
Or maybe they are right if it's 9-0 Polybius Feb 2024 #29
IMO it was pretty obvious from their questions that they were looking for a way... brush Feb 2024 #31
Yes, if they rule to keep him on, it's another nail in the coffin of our Democracy. Bluethroughu Feb 2024 #40
I am curious how the liberal Justices vote on this. William769 Feb 2024 #32
I listened to the entire hearing. It sounds like Trump will be on the ballot. Vote. Joinfortmill Feb 2024 #33
Every vote, every election is the vote of a lifetime. Bluethroughu Feb 2024 #41
Not if, it is when they do. Bev54 Feb 2024 #34
Wondering if all this could have been avoided if Garland Emile Feb 2024 #43
No need to wonder, he didn't and now were here. Bluethroughu Feb 2024 #45
Considering political concerns... Think. Again. Feb 2024 #51
Yes FBaggins Feb 2024 #48
I agree but politically it's bad ebbie15644 Feb 2024 #52
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If the SCOTUS votes to ke...»Reply #44