woodpusher:
"The obvious answer to Trumbull's questions is that a congressional declaration could not change Lincoln's acts to legal if they were not legal, nor could a congressional declaration make said acts legal if they were unconstitutional and void.
Despite insane Lincoln idolatry, Lincoln was not a King.
His acts could not be made lawful by decree."
Say our America-hating Democrats.
But there's nothing insane -- zero, zip, nada insane -- about Republicans protecting their President from lunatic Democrats determined to destroy the United States by whatever means possible, in this case habeas corpus.
Further, setting aside the absurd opinions of crazy Roger Taney and the traitors Breckenridge and Polk, the Supreme Court itself has never ruled directly on the issue of Lincoln's power to revoke habeas corpus in time of rebellion or invasion.
Regardless of even Trumbull's opinion, it is not a fact that Lincoln violated the law.
woodpusher: "Those who would approve of violations of the constitution merely exhibit a form of Trump Degrangement Syndrome in reverse.
There is no defense of unconstitutional acts by presidents regardless of party.
You labor mightily under the absurd notion that there is some party duty to approve unlawful and unconstitutional acts by a president of the chosen party. "
So say our insane Democrats.
But a rational person understands that there was no definitive law or Supreme Court ruling forbidding Lincoln's actions regarding habeas corpus and that Congress, despite determined Democrat opposition, did eventually authorize suspension -- the 1863 Habeas Corpus Suspension Act.
Confederate General Breckenridge:
Further, those traitor Democrats who fought most strongly against authorizing Lincoln to suspend were totally happy when the Confederate Congress authorized Jefferson Davis to suspend -- no debate, no delays, and nothing sane about them.
woodpusher: "It was intended to protect President Lincoln from the consequences of unlawful acts in violation of laws and the constitution.
Those radicals who approved of violating the constitution to further their desires were for such dictatorial acts.
The majority of congress was against it.
The measure could not pass in 1861, it could not pass in 1863, it did not pass ever. "
Again, crazy Roger notwithstanding, there was then and still today no direct Supreme Court ruling against Lincoln's actions.
When Congress did act in 1863 it approved future suspensions and took no notice of past suspensions.
woodpusher: "The problem with SR-1 was most certainly not the filibuster rule.
Nobody was filibustering.
The opposition was clamoring for a vote.
Lincoln supporter Republican Lyman Trumbull withdrew the bill to save Lincoln from a humiliating defeat.
Your imaginative historical fiction is belied by the actual record. "
RINO Democrat Senator Lyman Trumbull Judiciary Chairman
First, Massachusetts Republican Senator Wilson was not "the opposition", he represented the majority Republicans.
Second, your unsupported claim that 1861's SR 1 would have been defeated rests on the assumption that RINO Trumbull would have been joined by at least three other RINO senators, and I've seen no evidence of that.
What's clear from your own posts is that RINO Trumbull was mesmerized by the traitors Breckenridge & Polk into remembering that he, Trumbull, was really a Democrat at heart and would rather see the United States destroyed than support his Republican president.
Trumbull was victimized by Democrats' Lincoln Derangement Syndrome.
woodpusher: "As for the inability to reach a vote, because of the imposition of some impenetrable filibuster, in the immortal words of Barry Scheck, where is it, Mr. Fung Brother Joe?
How did a filibuster escape the transcripts? "
I was referring to Democrats' filibuster against HR 591 in March, 1863.
That bill eventually passed with overwhelming majorities in both houses.
It authorized future suspensions of habeas corpus, but said nothing to either indemnify or censure previous suspensions.
In all fairness to Trumbull and other Republicans at that time, I have no doubt they didn't think Lincoln needed to be indemnified.
woodpusher: "However, there are a few quotable quotes about the bill all Republicans were supposedly required to vote for. "
I have no interest in the opinions of traitor Breckenridge except as they somehow seem to have infected the mind of RINO Trumbull.
The real question is whether there were Republicans besides RINO Trumbull willing to vote against 1861 SR-1?
I've seen no evidence of that, meaning Trumbull was simply acting in his authority as chairman to quash a bill he personally didn't like.
woodpusher: "The votes were not there.
That was the problem.
The votes were still not there in 1863 for the crap they tried to push in 1861. "
You don't know how many votes there were for or against.
You only know that Trumbull himself was against 1861 SR-1, and also against Thaddeus Stevens' original 1863 HR-591.
That's why Trumbull replaced Steven's HR-591 with his own, leaving off indemnification, and got it passed with overwhelming majorities in both houses.
Again, the lopsided vote for HR-591 suggests to me that Republicans at the time did not think indemnification was necessary.
woodpusher: "Nothing became the 13th Amendment in 1864.
A proposal for an Amendment was approved to be sent to the States for ratification in 1865.
The proposed amendment became the 13th Amendment on December 6, 1865. "
Now you're just being ridiculous.
In January 1864 Trumbull began working on the bill which eventually became the 13th Amendment.
woodpusher: "President Johnson was not guilty of any violation of law.
Lincoln was.
Trumbull did not defend Lincoln's unlawful acts.
You still do."
You have it exactly backwards.
The truth is that President Andrew Johnson was accused and impeached for violating an actual law, but RINO Trumbull voted against conviction because he personally thought the law itself was unconstitutional.
Trumbull put his own opinions above the law itself.
In the case of Lincoln, no actual law was violated, no accusations were made, outside the fantasies of crazy Roger Taney.
But RINO Trumbull seemed mesmerized by arguments of traitorous Democrats and so refused to indemnify Lincoln for saving the United States from Democrats' efforts to destroy it.
woodpusher: "Trumbull was not willing to ignore violations of the laws and the Constitution.
You are willing to make believe Lincoln's acts have some viable defence, even if you are incapable of articulating what it may be."
I'm no lawyer, but the defense here is simple: no laws were broken in this matter.
woodpusher: "The votes for that insane nonsense were still not there.
The attempt to insert that crap into legislation did not fail for want of trying.
Nor did it fail for want of a cloture rule.
Authorization by Congress to suspend habeas corpus passed cloture and the requirement for votes.
Approval of Lincoln's unauthorized and unconstitutional acts failed for want of votes. "
Now, typical Democrat, you've just descended down from ridiculous arguments to flat-out lying, why?
After much parliamentary maneuvering, Thaddeus Stevens' HR-591 eventually became the 1863 Habeas Corpus Suspension Act".
Why do you lie about that?
woodpusher: "In Trumbull's defense, there was no viable legal defense for Lincoln's acts.
However, 169 years later, those with Lincoln Idolatry Syndrome continue to issue fiction as history. "
159 years from 1861 to 2020 = ~160.
In Lincoln's defense, again, outside the fantasies of crazy Confederate Roger Taney, there was no serious accusation of wrongdoing on Lincoln's part.
As for alleged "Lincoln Idolatry Syndrome", that's never been seen on Free Republic, but Lincoln Derangement Syndrome drives our Democrats here into paroxysms of rage over their failure to utterly destroy the United States in the 1860s.
Sorry about that, FRiend, but it's long past time for you get over it. ![]()
woodpusher: "President Johnson was not guilty of any violation of law. Lincoln was. Trumbull did not defend Lincoln's unlawful acts. You still do."
You have it exactly backwards. The truth is that President Andrew Johnson was accused and impeached for violating an actual law, but RINO Trumbull voted against conviction because he personally thought the law itself was unconstitutional.
Trumbull put his own opinions above the law itself.
In the case of Lincoln, no actual law was violated, no accusations were made, outside the fantasies of crazy Roger Taney.
But RINO Trumbull seemed mesmerized by arguments of traitorous Democrats and so refused to indemnify Lincoln for saving the United States from Democrats' efforts to destroy it.
For what purpose do you invoke the Tenure of Office Act, an Act notoriously known to be unconstitutional?
How could President Andrew Johnson violate a "law" which was unconstitutional and null and void ab initio?
Trumbull was right, beyond any reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. So was President Andrew Johnson, and more recently, President Donald J. Trump.
The knowledge that the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitution is notorious. For what ridiculous purpose do you raise it from its grave and support it?
woodpusher: "Trumbull was not willing to ignore violations of the laws and the Constitution. You are willing to make believe Lincoln's acts have some viable defence, even if you are incapable of articulating what it may be."
I'm no lawyer, but the defense here is simple: no laws were broken in this matter.
Whatever makes you feel the compulsion to say that you are not a lawyer?
Argument based upon the Tenure in Office Act, notoriously known to be unconstitutional, makes that clear.
What is it with your strange penchant for unconstitutional acts?
woodpusher: "As for the inability to reach a vote, because of the imposition of some impenetrable filibuster, in the immortal words of Barry Scheck, where is it, Mr. Fung Brother Joe? How did a filibuster escape the transcripts? "
[BroJoeK #291]: I was referring to Democrats' filibuster against HR 591 in March, 1863.
That bill eventually passed with overwhelming majorities in both houses.
It authorized future suspensions of habeas corpus, but said nothing to either indemnify or censure previous suspensions.
In all fairness to Trumbull and other Republicans at that time, I have no doubt they didn't think Lincoln needed to be indemnified.
- - - - - - - - - -
No, you were not referring to HR 591 in March 1863, you explicitly referred to SR-1 of 1861, with nary a mention of HR 591 of 1863. You explicitly claimed that "The 1861 S No. 1 was introducted by Massachusetts Republican Senator Henry Wilson," and, still in reference to Wilson's Resolution, "here were two problems, the first was the lack of a filibuster cloture rule...."
You invented a filibuster that never happened, and when confronted by the official record of the relevant 1861 congressional debate, you seek to make believe you were talking about a bill from 1863.
The record of the debates does not lie. Neither does the FR record of what you actually wrote.
[BroJoeK #289]: The 1861 S No. 1 was introduced by Massachusetts Republican Senator Henry Wilson (later President Grant's Vice President).It was intended to protect President Lincoln against insanely traitorous Democrats and their Doughfaced Republican co-conspirators.
In 1861 Republicans had 62% of the US Senate and 58% of the House meaning they theoretically could have passed pretty much whatever they wanted.
[woodpusher #290] It was intended to protect President Lincoln from the consequences of unlawful acts in violation of laws and the constitution. Those radicals who approved of violating the constitution to further their desires were for such dictatorial acts. The majority of congress was against it. The measure could not pass in 1861, it could not pass in 1863, it did not pass ever.
[BroJoeK #289]: But there were two problems, the first was the lack of a filibuster cloture rule, meaning Democrats could block pretty much anything in the Senate.
The problem with SR-1 was most certainly not the filibuster rule. Nobody was filibustering. The opposition was clamoring for a vote. Lincoln supporter Republican Lyman Trumbull withdrew the bill to save Lincoln from a humiliating defeat. Your imaginative historical fiction is belied by the actual record.
Below are links for the debate which occurred on August 5, 1861 regarding SR-1, S69, and S72. As for the inability to reach a vote, because of the imposition of some impenetrable filibuster, in the immortal words of Barry Scheck, where is it, Mr. Fung Brother Joe? How did a filibuster escape the transcripts?
The debate which occurred on August 5, 1861 regarding SR-1, S69, and S72 is at the Congressional Globe at pages 442, 443, 448, and 449.
The debate which occurred on the last day of the session, August 6, 1861 regarding SR-1, S69, and S72 is at the Congressional Globe at pages 451, 452, 453, 454, 456, 458, and 459.
There is no filibuster to be found.
So, you were clearly talking about SR-1 of 1861 and your blather about 1863 is merely an attempt at diversion. Be that as it may, the question was about where is your cited filibuster?
[BroJoeK #291]: When Congress did act in 1863 it approved future suspensions and took no notice of past suspensions.
What was the purpose of the Indemnity Bill again? The official record shows:
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Etheridge, its Clerk, announced that the House of Representatives had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. R. No. 591) to indemnify the President and other persons for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and acts done in pursuance thereof.
[...]
Mr. TRUMBULL. The committee of conference on the bill of the House of Representatives (No. 591) to indemnify the President and other persons for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and acts done in pursuance thereof, have agreed on a report, which I submit.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I will state, for the information of the Senate, that the report embraces nothing but the subject-matter of the bill which passed the House of Representatives, and the amendments which passed the Senate. The House of Representatives passed a bill containing two sections, the first with a preamble. The first section ratified all acts of the President in the arrest of parties, and indemnified and discharged all officers from suits or prosecutions in consequence of any arrests made under his authority....
At or about 7 p.m.:
Mr. TRUMBULL. I must insist on calling up the report of the committee of conference on the indemnity bill, which was laid aside until seven o'clock.
It was then agreed to take up the bill at 7 p.m. that evening. Its passage was at about 2 a.m. in the morning. It was done and dusted in seven hours, from time debate started until the voice vote was recorded. When did your alleged 1863 filibuster take place?
[BroJoeK #291]: That bill eventually passed with overwhelming majorities in both houses.
Let us look at the "overwhelming majority" as recorded in the record.
As you state that an overwhelming majority voted for the bill, do tell how many voted for and against.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Let us have the yeas and nays on the adjournment. The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken resulted—yeas 4, nays 33; as follows:
[recorded vote on adjournment omitted]
So the Senate refused to adjourn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Pomeroy.) The question is on concurring in the report af the committee of conference. Those in favor of concurring in the report will say “aye” those opposed “no.” The ayes have it. It is a vote. The report is concurred in.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I move that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 599.
Mr. POWELL. I hope the Senate will proceed with this indemnity bill.
The motion of Mr. Trumbull was agreed to.
Mr. TRUMBULL. It is a bill relating to the validity of deeds of public squares and lots in the city of Washington.
Mr. POWELL. What has become of the other bill?
Mr. GRIMES. It has passed.
[BroJoeK #291]: In January 1864 Trumbull began working on the bill which eventually became the 13th Amendment. [BroJoeK #289] In 1864 Trumbull's abolition bill became the US 13th Amendment.
You explicitly stated that "In 1864, Trumbull's abolition bill became the US 13th Amendment."
In 1864, Trumbull's proposal had not been approved, had not been sent to the people for ratification, and most certainly did not become the 13th Amendment. The proposed text became an amendment in December 1865.
When Trumbull started working on it is irrelevant. And stop calling it a bill. It was not a bill. Bills become Federal laws. Resolutions propose constitutional Amendments.
Of course, if you had bothered to actually look up the record, you could not help but notice that it was a Resolution. Your posts reveal your lack of even the most basic knowledge of what you are talking about, and your disinclination to be bothered to research any of your purported facts or hallucinations about the law.