Replies

I presented extensive quotes from Supreme Court decisions, Supreme Court justices, and legal authories who wrote major works on the Constitution. Upon your evasions and attempts to change the subject, I requoted the applicable legal material to you demonstrating over and over that you were unable to address or controvert what I was posting and that your argument was your usual manure spread.

In your #202 you replied with a quote of Harry V. Jaffa, a political philosopher.

In your #208 you quoted historian Paludan and Scottish historian Peter Parish, whoever he is.

In your #209 you quoted historian Paludan again.

In your #210 you made the unsupported assertion that Lincoln's "actions to protect the constitutional union, the enforce the laws, and to suppress the rebellion were both prudent and lawful."

In your #215 you quoted leftist liberal Berkeley law professor and Lincoln apologist, Daniel Farber.

In your #218 you made the irrelevant argument, "Taney's motivation was well-known."

In your #223, your entire argument was, "Hairball - try mineral oil."

In your #226 you repeated the known falsehood that the Act of August 1861 ratified Lincoln's habeas corpus violations.

In your #226 you invoked the "contest between Gen Andrew Jackson and the court in New Orleans." You did not note that martial law was in effect, not a suspension of habeas corpus, that the military court held it had no jurisdiction and that the prisoner must be released, and that Jackson was hauled before the court and found guilty of contempt and fined.

In your #227, your Lincoln excuse is "Lincoln's paramount duty was not to wait for Congress to re-assemble."

In your #228 you assert the ridiculous "Lincoln clearly wanted to Congress to be part of the war planning, because of their control of appropriations, and to ratify his emergency actions."

You really should try mineral oil. Not only will it help you with the hairballs you continue to cough up, but it may relieve your intellectual constipation too.

Your entire post is nothing more than an ad hominem smear. You don't refute the substance of what has been quoted, but rather, you attack the people who made the observations. Meanwhile, some of the other stooges are polluting FR with Hitler quotations - apparently to your satisfaction. It is easy to see where you guys stand.

And you don't read very well, because you continue to mischaracterize what I said. Case in point, you stated, "In your #226 you repeated the known falsehood that the Act of August 1861 ratified Lincoln's habeas corpus violations." My #226 says nothing of the sort. It say that in August 1861 and March 1863 Congress retrospectively ratified Lincoln's emergency actions taken early in the war. This is a true statement. The

Prize Cases upheld the validity of the August 6, 1861 Act which, at the very least, upheld and ratified Lincoln's actions with regard to the Army and the Navy, as well as his conduct of the war. It is an historical fact that the Lincoln was satisfied with that legislation, as far as it went. The Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 specifically provided the missing authorization with regard to the suspension of the writ. (They is other rationale to suggest that he could have continued even without the authoriztion, but that is fodder for another post.) Your misinterpretation of my statement is yet another example of your limited intellectual faculties.