Cloture had not yet been adopted as a rule in the Senate, so there was no way to prevent a minuscule minority from holding up business by refusing to surrender the floor..."
I accept your argument that there was no way to stop a filibuster and the bill therefore could not have come to a vote on the same evening it was presented for debate.
Therefore it's only Trumbull's bill which really matters here, and it's interesting to learn that Trumbull called his bill an "indemnity bill" because, as I understand it, the word "indemnity" does not appear in it.
It is impossible to be SENATOR Trumbull’s bill. The bill was HOUSE Resolution 591. As I explained previously, there was a proposed Senate Amendment to a House Bill, much the same as was done with Obamacare, the PPACA. However the Senate proposes to amend it, it remains a House bill, and the proposal goes to the House to accept or reject, or a joint committee to iron out the differences before a vote.
Perhaps Trumbull -- or at least his fellow Republicans -- did not wish to indemnify Lincoln for exercising powers he already had.
The Congress refused to indemnify President Lincoln for his actions regarding habeas corpus. Congress passed an indemnity bill which indemnified those who carried out the Lincoln directives.
Notice first that Lincoln's Attorney General, Edwin Bates, agreed Lincoln's actions were already authorized.
Notice that the Constitution gave such authority to the Legislative Branch and Congress disagreed with the Executive Branch’s unilateral action and refused to ratify it. The Courts placed the authority in the Legislative Branch.
Second, here you've quoted my explanation exactly -- the word "indemnify" was removed.... "Indemnity" does not appear in the final version.
So, despite the name "Indemnity Bill", Trumbull's final Act did not use the word "indemnity"....
The word Indemnity was removed from what? When was the word Indemnity ever in the bill?
Moreover, it is just another example of your Juvenile logic.
Apply your logic to the Constitution. Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 3 does not contain the word fugitive, nor the word slave, nor the term fugitive slave. By your juvenile logic, the fugitive slave clause did not exist.
Furthermore, you adhere to the Great Tricky Dick Defense:
Frost: So, what in a sense you’re saying is that there are certain situations and the Huston plan or that part of it was one of them where the president can decide that it’s in the best interest of the nation or something and do something illegal. Nixon: Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal.
Frost: By definition –
Nixon: Exactly … exactly… if the president … if, for example, the president approves something … approves an action, ah … because of the national security or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of, ah … ah … significant magnitude … then … the president’s decision in that instance is one, ah … that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they’re in an impossible position.
As near as I can recall, that defense has not received very favorable reviews and a bunch of law breakers went to prison.
woodpusher:
"I accept your argument that there was no way to stop a filibuster and the bill therefore could not have come to a vote on the same evening it was presented for debate." The Democrats' effort in the Senate on the evening of March 2, to delay "the indemnity bill" has been described as a "filibuster".
You may wish to call it something else.
woodpusher: "It is impossible to be SENATOR Trumbull’s bill.
The bill was HOUSE Resolution 591.
As I explained previously, there was a proposed Senate Amendment to a House Bill, much the same as was done with Obamacare, the PPACA.
However the Senate proposes to amend it, it remains a House bill, and the proposal goes to the House to accept or reject, or a joint committee to iron out the differences before a vote."
Possibly you missed the fact that we're here talking about HR-591, the final March 2 vote on the final product which came out the joint committee.
What came out of committee was a replacement bill engineered by Senator Trumbull, approved by the House (99-44) on March 2, by Senate voice-vote late that night, signed by the President March 3.
According to your own quotes (see, for example, post #295), Trumbull still called his new bill, "the indemnity bill", even though the actual word "indemnity" no longer appeared in it.
woodpusher: "The Congress refused to indemnify President Lincoln for his actions regarding habeas corpus.
Congress passed an indemnity bill which indemnified those who carried out the Lincoln directives."
And yet, according to your own quotes, they still called it "the indemnity bill".
As for Lincoln himself, obviously enough Republicans believed he needed no indemnity from Congress.
woodpusher: "The word Indemnity was removed from what?
When was the word Indemnity ever in the bill?
Moreover, it is just another example of your Juvenile logic."
Juvenile logic and insults are rapidly becoming your specialty here.
According to your own quotes HR-591 was called, "the indemnity bill", and had that word in its title, until removed by Senator Trumbull (who still himself called it "indemnity"), with acquiescence from other Republicans, notably the bill's author, Rep. Stevens.
Given the bill's nearly unanimous Republican support, I conclude they didn't believe Lincoln required Congress' indemnification -- see your own post #306, quote from Randall.
woodpusher: "Apply your logic to the Constitution. Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 3 does not contain the word fugitive, nor the word slave, nor the term fugitive slave.
By your juvenile logic, the fugitive slave clause did not exist. "
I'd call that a good example of woodpusher's own "juvenile logic."
woodpusher: "Furthermore, you adhere to the Great Tricky Dick Defense: "
And yet more "juvenile logic" from woodpusher, truly, it's becoming your trademark. ![]()