The Constitution of the Confederate States of America was largely a copy of the U.S. Constitution but eliminated the Supreme Court, precisely because the U.S. Supreme Court had never been intended to have authority over the States (the very idea being ludicrous as the federal government was the creature and servant of the States), but over time had usurped that authority rather than maintaining its advisory role. Unfortunately that experiment in governance soon ended as the Executive branch of the U.S. government also usurped authority never delegated to it, and was successful through the imprisonment of opposition elected officials in preventing the Legislative branch from correcting the error before force of arms decided the issue against the American people.
Here’s a link to a point-by-point comparison of the two constitutions, wherein you can readily search for “supreme” and find e.g. that III.1 is exactly the same in the two: “The judicial power of the Confederate States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”
What a fascinating comparison between the two constitutions. The general absence of changes promoting states’ rights to self-government is awfully telling, especially in comparison to the significant changes entrenching slavery. Therefore Alan Light’s statement “Unfortunately that experiment in governance soon ended…before force of arms decided the issue against the American people” implies that human slaves are not people.
I think Alan Light’s complaint about “the imprisonment of opposition” refers to Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus. The comparison anticipates this specific claim in its notes on Section 9.
No changes [to the suspension of habeas corpus]. Though Confederate apologists often bemoan the fact that the Yankee tyrant Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, there was nothing to stop the president of the Confederacy from doing the exact same thing.
The Constitution of the Confederate States of America was largely a copy of the U.S. Constitution but eliminated the Supreme Court, precisely because the U.S. Supreme Court had never been intended to have authority over the States (the very idea being ludicrous as the federal government was the creature and servant of the States), but over time had usurped that authority rather than maintaining its advisory role. Unfortunately that experiment in governance soon ended as the Executive branch of the U.S. government also usurped authority never delegated to it, and was successful through the imprisonment of opposition elected officials in preventing the Legislative branch from correcting the error before force of arms decided the issue against the American people.
This appears to be entirely untrue.
Here’s a link to a point-by-point comparison of the two constitutions, wherein you can readily search for “supreme” and find e.g. that III.1 is exactly the same in the two: “The judicial power of the Confederate States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”
What a fascinating comparison between the two constitutions. The general absence of changes promoting states’ rights to self-government is awfully telling, especially in comparison to the significant changes entrenching slavery. Therefore Alan Light’s statement “Unfortunately that experiment in governance soon ended…before force of arms decided the issue against the American people” implies that human slaves are not people.
I think Alan Light’s complaint about “the imprisonment of opposition” refers to Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus. The comparison anticipates this specific claim in its notes on Section 9.
The line-item veto is interesting too.