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. ![]()
BroJoeK #316:
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..."
BroJoeK #327:
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".
I care not how some described it, there is no filibuster in the transcript, the bill passed at the same session it was introduced, and YOU stated "there was no way to prevent a minuscule minority from holding up business by refusing to surrender the floor. I merely chose to agree with your claim that there was no way to prevent a minority from refusing to surrender the floor. As the impossible cannot happen, the mythical filibuster must not have been defeated.
When you are done just making crap up, let me know.
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.
I was a HOUSE RESOLUTION, HR-591. It could not become Senator Trumbull's Senate Resolution by way of amendment. The House accepted the revised text of HOUSE RESOLUTION 591. You apparently cannot understand that the Senate cannot create a HOUSE Resolution. It started as HR-591, and it finished as HR-591. It did not become anything else.
As the PPACA proved, as one of centuries of such proofs, a House appropriation bill, passed with amendments from the Senate, remains a bill originated in the House, as all appropriations bill must originate in the House. Had Senate amendments made it a Senate bill, it would have been unconstitutional as an appropriation bill.
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".
Duh... that was because it was an indemnity bill. It indemnified the folks who carried out the directives of the Lincoln administration, but not Lincoln himself.
They called it an indemnity bill all night because it indemnified people.
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That any order of the President, or under his authority, made at any time during the existence of the present rebellion, shall be a defence in all courts to any action or prosecution, civil or criminal, pending, or to be commenced, for any search, seizure, arrest, or imprisonment, made, done, or committed, or acts omitted to be done, under and by virtue of such order, or under color of any law of Congress, and such defence may be made by special plea, or under the general issue
The fact of an order by Lincoln, or under his authority, was stated to be a defence against a claim of unlawful search, seizure, arrest, or imprisonment by those who acted pursuant to the order, however unlawful or unconstitutional the search, seizure, arrest, or imprisonment may have been.
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. ... 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.
No, I did not say the Indemnity Bill had the word in its title until removed by Senator Trumbull. You keep saying the word was removed from the bill by Senator Trumbull. I have challenged you to show, from the transcript, where Senator Trumbull made any such change to the bill.
The guy who published the transcript of the proceedings employed a column heading of Indemnity Bill. The legislators called it an indemnity bill. That is not the text of the bill. I quoted the transcript and gave you links. I cannot read it for you.
I challenged you to show where the word indemnity was ever in the bill, or ever taken out of the bill. The bill was introduced and passed in the same session day with no amendments. Your claim that anything was removed is false.
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."
It is the precise logic of your nonsensical argument. It yields a nonsensical result because you used 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.
And yet, the Great Tricky Dick Defense is the precise logic of your Lincoln 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.
If the President authorizes or orders an unlawful, unconstitutional act to be carried out, those who carry it out violate no law. They were only following orders. Jawohl!
As near as I can recall, that defense has not received very favorable reviews and a bunch of law breakers went to prison.
When you have no argument, fling poo.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule154
Modern International Humanitarian Law (IHL) directly addresses the issue [footnotes omitted]:
Rule 154. Obedience to Superior Orders Rule 154. Every combatant has a duty to disobey a manifestly unlawful order. Practice
Volume II, Chapter 43, Section D.
Summary
State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable to orders given in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
Manifestly unlawful orders
This rule flows from the duty to respect international humanitarian law (see Rule 139) and is also a corollary of the rule that obeying a superior order is not a defence of a war crime, if the subordinate should have known that the act ordered was unlawful because of its manifestly unlawful nature (see Rule 155). In finding that superior orders, if manifestly unlawful, cannot be a defence, several courts based their judgements on the fact that such orders must be disobeyed.[1]
Besides the practice related to the defence of superior orders, practice specifying that there is a duty to disobey an order that is manifestly unlawful or that would entail the commission of a war crime is contained in the military manuals, legislation and official statements of numerous States.[2] This rule is confirmed in national case-law.[3]
This practice, together with the fact that a subordinate who commits a war crime pursuant to an order which is manifestly unlawful cannot invoke that order as a defence and remains guilty of that crime (see Rule 155), means that there is a duty to disobey such an order.
Unlawful orders
With respect to the position of a combatant who disobeys an order that is unlawful, but not manifestly so, practice is unclear. Many countries specify in their military law that it is the duty of all subordinates to obey “lawful” or “legitimate” orders and that not to do so is a punishable offence.[4] Although this could be interpreted as implying that subordinates must not obey unlawful orders, no practice was found stating such an obligation. Some practice was found providing for a right to disobey an unlawful order.[5] Disobedience of an unlawful order should not entail criminal responsibility, under domestic law, as subordinates only have a duty to obey lawful orders.[6]
Armed opposition groups
As mentioned above, this rule flows from the duty to respect international humanitarian law (see Rule 139) and is also a corollary to the rule that obeying a superior order is not a defence of a war crime, if the subordinate should have known that the act ordered was unlawful because of its manifestly unlawful nature (see Rule 155), both of which apply equally to State armed forces and to armed opposition groups. However, no specific practice was found to confirm this conclusion, as the military manuals, national legislation and case-law referring to this rule relate essentially to members of State armed forces.
An American case, directly on point, was the William Calley case.
https://trialinternational.org/latest-post/william-calley/
The Court of Military Appeals also judged that Calley could not invoke in his defence that orders were received from his superiors in order to be exonerated from his criminal responsibility. Indeed, an act committed in conformity with an illegal order is not subject to punishment, except: 1. If the accused knew that the order was illegal: in such a case the personal character of the accused must be taken into account (education, hierarchical level, experience in the field, etc.), or
2. If someone of common sense and understanding, would have known, in the same circumstances, that this order was illegal: in such a case, the assessment would no longer be focused on the personality of the accused but on an abstractly defined standard.
In the case in point , the Court judged that the order given to kill children and unarmed civilians who were incapable of offering resistance, was very clearly illegal. Any person “of common sense and understanding” would have realised this. It was even possible to be more demanding of Calley in this respect, in view of his grade and experience.
As a result, Calley’s appeal was rejected.