Replies

[nc quoting Cuomo] "Of course what Lincoln was saying, as touching as it sounds, might be translated into something like this: If the government thinks a war is a good idea but a citizen thinks it is an abomination and a fraud, he is not free to say so because he might convince someone."

[cr] What Lincoln was really saying was, "If you attempt to illegally subvert the war effort, you might end up in the graybar hotel."

What Lincoln was saying was that if you lawfully and constitutionally disagreed with Lincoln, he would forcibly deprive you of your constitutional right to free speech. If you were too persuasive, he would subject you to one of his unconstitutional military tribunals and then unconstitutionally deport you or unconstitutionally stick you in a bastille for political prisoners.

Cuomo had it quite correct: "There is no question that Lincoln took it upon himself to authorize suspending the writ in contradiction of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. ... I still wish that the great Lincoln had stood by the Constitution despite the strong temptation not to. Our government has ample authority under the Constitution to take those steps that are genuinely necessary for our security. At the same time, our system demands that government act only on the basis of measures that have been the subject of open and thoughtful debate in Congress and among the American people and that invasions of the liberty or equal dignity of any individual are subject to review by courts that are open to those affected and independent of the government that is curtailing freedom. ... Lincoln's willingness to put himself above the law was particularly unfortunate because of the strong pledge to constitutional fidelity he had made and affirmed in his earlier days. In his Lyceum speech of 1838 he went so far as to say that compliance with the letter and the spirit of the law should be treated as the 'political religion' of the nation."

[cr] "If you attempt to illegally subvert the war effort, you might end up in the graybar hotel."

Missed that word the first time around. Dissent is not illegal. It seems axiomatic that those empowered to interpret the law (judges) are not engaging in anything illegal in so doing. If those in question here were doing something illegal there would be no need to suspend the writ. Legality is determined by the law, not the president, and certainly not cabinet officials with little silver bells.

Actually, I'm about 1/2 way between LAX and Santa Barbara - in Tom McClintock country. Your formatting seems fine.

While I applaud the effort of those who made an attempt to put a conservative in office here, I'd like to (and will continue to) think of it all as 'far from home.' We were recently faced with a choice between a squishy liberal with an (R) by his name and an obvious conservative a few years back... the party leadership pushed for 'someone who can win' and, naturally, we ended up sending (D)Harkin back to the US Senate.

See #155 in reply to Gianni.

Quoting recently from Cuomo and Lerone Jr. That's quite a left-wing book club you belong to.

I shutter to think what would have happened if the Consigliere had been President in 1861. "I imagine he would have said of the Rebels, "Give them a little land, and few slaves, and maybe they'll play nice. Whadda you think?"