Prof. Somin writes: > I'm not sure that Prof. Martin is right to suggest that the Supreme Court > is the proper forum for the resolution of all or most serious > state-federal disputes that might lead to secession. After all, the Court > can only hear such disputes as can be the subject of legal cases. In the > case of Confederate secession, their most important concern was the fear > that Lincoln or a sucessor would, IN THE FUTURE, use federal power to > abolish slavery or severely restrict it. I don't see how the Supreme Court > could have resolved this particular dispute. After all, the Court (in most > situations) can't hear claims about possible future violations of the > Constitution that haven't happened yet.
COMMENT: I may not understand your point here. I agree that the Supreme Court generally cannot adjudicate potential constitutional violations. However, if Lincoln had issued an executive order abolishing slavery before the southern states seceded, the southern states could have challenged his order in federal court as unconstitutional. Prof. Somin continues: >Even if the Court did hear the > South's "case" and ruled in their favor, I doubt that the Confederates > would have been satisfied. After all, the Court had already gone far out > of its way to protect slaveowners' interests in Dred Scott, yet this did > not prevent Confederate secession. COMMENT: You may be right. Francisco Forrest Martin
