It is the procession of the penitents during Easter week in Spain.
Posted on 11/13/2004 11:12:00 AM PST by LouAvul
You are a witting fabricator and liar, and you dissemble everything you can for cheap debating points, or just to mess with people, which is even more otiose. You are just totally non-credible. When you brought in Texas vs. White, I had to go back and pull up the whole opinion, just to make sure you weren't lying to me. Again.
You have no shame and you have no conscience about these matters, when your opinions are challenged. That's really too bad, because it's a mark against you, not as a poster but as a man. Sorry, boss.
The exception that proved your statement incorrect.
Are we in a mystical union now?
The idea that you would form a Government that could be broken up at the whim of any single state is simply ridicilous.
The South rejected New England states attempt to do so in the War of 1812 when they wanted to leave the Union, since the War was destroying them fiancially.
Even the Souths'own Constitution has the goal of a permanent government, not a mere compact of sovereign nations.
The States were to be sovereign in those areas that were not expressly given to the Federal Gov't, but that did not mean they were individual nations.
Matter of fact, the Confederacy was indeed.
Your theory is like saying, "If I rape Paula, then tell the cops she's my wife, I'm covered." Nice cover story.
If the Federal gov't was abusing its power the people have a right to change that gov't as is the right of revolution (which Lincoln never denied)
Secession is not an option since the nation was formed by the people and it must be the people as a people who change it.
Well, the Colonies fighting against the Crown were engaging in an act of treason, and saying they were not part of the Crown did not change anything until they actually left the British empire.
1. Get over asserting, frivolously and untruthfully, that a State or States leaving the Union breaks up the whole United States. That's a dishonest argument, and you know it by now -- you've been told, and it has been shown you, that Florida's and Georgia's leaving the Union in no way impaired the adhesion of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and California.
2. That is exactly the kind of government we formed, because we reserved every power not granted to the United States by the Constitution, to the States and the People by passing the Tenth Amendment. We also made sure, by the Ninth Amendment, that the enumeration and specification of some rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights could never be used to deny the rest of our reserved rights and powers.
The basic problem here is that you like how the Civil War came out, and you will not listen to anything that doesn't tell you how lucky and how smart you are, or that tells you that perhaps your heroes of the Union may have perpetrated instead the single greatest crime in the history of North America, or even of the New World, in the pursuit of power and wealth.
That's true. It was taking a huge chance, on not much more than the conviction they were right. All they had to support them was some political theory of John Locke and the French philosophers, and a general and growing bias toward reason as a general principle.
They were really out there.
In another curious case, Seward, on the strength of allegations in an unsigned letter written to General Winfield Scott, placed under military surveillance Assistant Judge William M. Merrick of the United States Circuit Court in the District of Columbia. Seward's terse order to Provost Marshal Andrew Porter directed him "to establish a strict military guard over the residence of William M. Merrick." Porter apparently interpreted this to mean something more than surveillance and asked Seward, "Is it desired by the honorable Secretary that the judge should be confined to his house?" Seward replied that such confinement was not expected and that "it may be sufficient to make him understand that... when the public enemy is as it were at the gates of the capital the public safety is deemed to require that his correspondence and proceedings should be observed." The same day that he wrote Porter, October 21, 1861, the secretary of state also sent the first comptroller of the treasury this astonishing letter: "I am instructed by the President to direct that until further orders no more moneys be paid from the Treasury... on account of the salary of William M. Merrick." Merrick was never arrested, but Seward's order violated the Constitution's stipulation that judges' compensation "shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." [70][70] O.R. II, 2, pp. 1021-23. I am indebted to Howard Westwood for the constitutional point here.
Well, they did have that right, but Lincoln did deny it w/ respect to the South -- secession being a species of revolution. Secession is also the mildest of all the forms of revolution, since it doesn't involve destroying the original establishment. When the Roman plebs left town and withdrew ("secede" <= Lat. se "aside" + cedere "go", "progress", "retreat"), they didn't overthrow the Roman government or interfere with the magistrates or the institutions of the city's government.
Secession is not an option since the nation was formed by the people and it must be the people as a people who change it.
No, look at the Chase opinion I quoted upthread in Texas vs. White, on the nature of the equation between "People" and "State". Each State is a People and vice versa; and the People of each State acted independently in ratifying the Constitution. The Southern States basically reconvened those same conventions and rescinded their prior acts of ratification, and walked.
Remember the pecking order:
God
People = State
Constitution
U.S. and State Governments
Everything else.
It is the procession of the penitents during Easter week in Spain.
Article IV, Section 19, Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia:
"Slaves hereafter emancipated shall forfeit their freedom by remaining in the Commonwealth more than twelve months after they become actually free, and it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to prescribe proper regulations for reducing such negroes to slavery."
Where are the exemptions?
...did not affect free blacks already living there...
But could have. Article IV, Section 20, Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia:
"The General Assembly may profit the future emancipation of slaves, impose such restrictions and conditions as they shall deem proper on the power of slave owners to emancipate their slaves; and may pass laws for the relief of the Commonwealth from the free negro population, by removal or otherwise."
I think someone got that from Lincoln's line in the First Inaugural about "mystic chords of memory", and the Hamiltonians' theory debunking the Constitution (since so much of what they always wanted to do was outside it), by which the Union came into being before the actual document which establishes the Republic, which is the Constitution.
Whenever someone -- a West Coast Straussian or Claremonster, or a 19th-century Federalist or Whig, or a liberal New Dealer -- starts talking about the Declaration of Independence, that's code for "I want to go outside the Constitution and do myself a big, fat, favor!"
Some sure did:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world." -- Mississippi Secession Declaration
It illustrates something I've opined in the past, that white Americans 100 years ago simply didn't see blacks as being part of society. Here, Virginia's legislature is talking about them like a rat problem.
Upthread we were discussing Robert Rhett and the two tracts he ran out on secession. One, the invitation to the other States to secede, which he wrote at the instigation of the secession convention, reads like a political-science text; but the newspaper editorials he ran out about the same time, or a few months earlier, talk about the economic impact of slavery, the value of slaves, and so on, emphasizing it to a great degree. And yet slavery wasn't even among the top two capitulations of his address to the other States' secession conventions.
Perhaps you could stop lecturing on court decisions you have never read.
The title of what YOU quoted from is "The Suspension of Habeas Corpus And Ex Parte: Milligan." Your source, your purported legal "expert" proceeded to get the important facts all wrong. What he asserted as a close 5-4 decision was, in fact, 9-0. Your "expert" concluded that the majority of 5 plus 4 "concurring" justices equaled a 5-4 decision. That is a 9-0 decision. It would be 5-4 if there had been 4 DISSENTING justices. "Concurring" justices AGREE with the result, they CONCUR. Such are the legal "experts" upon whom you rely for your own legal "expertise." That you presented this rot showed that you were unable to discern the ineptitude of your source. It is also strong evidence that neither of you ever READ the opinions in Ex Parte Milligan. Your inept source misidentified the Concurring justices as part of the majority on the Constitutional issue. A reading of the opinion of CJ Chase reveals the opposite to the case. Anybody who has READ the opinion would KNOW that. CONCLUSION: Your and your inept source are "experts" and are lecturing about a court decision you are too lazy to read.
Milligan considered acts which occurred DURING the war. It found UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNLAWFUL, acts which occurred DURING the war.
[ftD #1209] Did President Lincoln suspend the U.S. Constitution?
Answer: He raped it.
Said the U.S. Supreme Court:
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.
[ftD #1209] Did President Lincoln suspend Habeas Corpus? Answer: Yes, in 1861 and 1862
What a forgettery you have. You forget that Lincoln had military officers running about suspending habeas corpus at their discretion.
[ftD #1209] Was Habeas Corpus ever restored? Answer: Yes, in 1866.
[ftD #1209] With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus.
Note: Lincoln assumed powers NOT delegated. Lincoln did not have the lawful power to suspend habeas corpus. He certainly did not have the lawful power to authorize military officers to suspend habeas corpus at THEIR discretion, but that is what Lincoln the Constitutional rapist did, and that is that the military officers did.
[ftD #1209] In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous.
Such as Maine?
[ftD #1209] In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.
CORRECTION: Lincoln signed an order for a nation-wide suspension of habeas corpus on September 24, 1862. Secretary of War Stanton issued a nationwide suspension of habeas corpus before Lincoln did. The whole thing was, of course, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It directs UNCONSTITUTIONAL trial by military tribunal. It is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY vague. A "disloyal practice" was the justification to arrest anybody without cause. Many were arrested, imprisoned, and never charged or even made aware of what they were purportedly charged with.
[ftD #1209] Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress.
The MILITARY suspended habeas corpus and VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION and defied the U.S. SUPREME COURT. Chief Justice Taney clearly condemned the action taken by the MILITARY. It would appear that you have read neither Merryman nor Milligan.
The constitution provides, as I have before said, that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.' It declares that 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' It provides that the party accused shall be entitled to a speedy trial in a court of justice.These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.
In the case of Merryman, Taney's final Opinion was issued before any purported suspension of habeas corpus by the military officers involved. Neither Lincoln, nor any other civilian, purported to have suspended habeas corpus in the case.
[ftD #1209] President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling.
Which was unlawful. There is significant evidence that Lincoln signed an order to arrest the Chief Justice and gave it to the District Marshall, Ward Hill Lamon, but it was not served.
[ftD #1209] Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.
This is simply ignorant nonsense. The Supreme Court ruled that trials of civilians by a military tribunal while the civilian courts were open and functioning was Unconstitutional and Unlawful. It neither unofficially nor "officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-Parte Milligan." You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.
Chief Justice Chase refused to convene Circuit Court proceedings (including the Jefferson Davis case) while martial law was imposed. He wrote:
6. I held no court in Virginia in 1865, because the writ of habeas corpus was suspended and martial law enforced within its territory; and in my judgment all courts in a region under martial law must be quasi-military courts; and it was neither right nor proper that the Chief-Justice or any justice of the supreme Court of the United States -- the highest tribunal of the nation, and the head of one of the coordinate departments of the Government -- should hold a court subject to the control or supervision of the Executive Department, exercising military power.7. Soon after the adjournment of the Supreme Court in April last, the President issued a proclamation, the effect of which seemed to me to be the abrogation of martial law and military government, and the restoration of the writ of habeas corpus in all the States except Texas; and I determined upon holding a court at the ensuing May term, but various Executive orders inconsistent with the conclusion that military government had ceased, soon followed the proclamation, and led to an apprehension thatthe construction I had put upon it was not intended. I therefore reconsidered my purpose to hold the Circuit Court, and did not hold one.
8. But, determined to omit no duty, I called upon the President in April or May (I cannot fix the exact date, but probably in May), and urged him to issue a proclamation, submitted at the same time a draft of one, declaring, in unequivocal terms, that martial law was abrogated and the writ of habeas corpus restored in all cases of which the courts of the Untied States had jurisdiction, and in respect to all processes issuing out of or from such courts. But this was not done.
9. Subsequently, however, another proclamation was issued, affirming the restoration of peace throughout the whole country, which as, as yet, been followed by no order asserting the continuance of military government. Under this proclamation, therefore, it seems fair to conclude that martial law and military government are permanently abrogated and the writ of habeas corpus fully restored; and this conclusion warrants the holding of courts by the Chief-Justice and the associate justices as the law may direct.
J.W. Schuckers, The Life and Public Services of Salmon Portland Chase, 1874, writes at page 543:
It was not until June, 1867, that the Chief-Justice held a court in any one of the insurgent States, and then at Raleigh, in North Carolina. He stated at the opening, and before proceeding with the ordinary business of the court, that the military control over the civil tribunals had been withdrawn by the President, and that the writ of habeas corpus, which had been suspended, was restored. This was mostly effected by the President's proclamation of April, 1866, and finally by the proclamation of August 20th subsequent. These proclamations, he said, reinstated the full authority of the national courts in all matters within their jurisdiction.
[ftD #1209] As for Congress, the question you raised was did Congress give support to what Lincoln did and they had by protecting his actions retroactivly in 1863
The did not protect his "actions." They protected Lincoln and those many who faced civil liability for having performed unlawful and unconstitutional violations of civil rights as directed by Lincoln and his administration. Congress did not declare the acts lawful, but provided a defense to criminal prosecution or civil liability. Congress also provided, unconstitutionally, that all such cases, even after having been decided by a State court, could be removed to Federal court for rehearing, including rehearing of the facts of the case (not just an appeal). The Supreme Court later ruled this unconstitutional. In this opinion I believe all lawyers of reputation, of whatever political opinion, concur."
Moreover, you are responding to my #1155. Please point out where "the question [I] raised was did (sic) Congress give support to what Lincoln did and they had (sic) by protecting his action retroactivly (sic) in 1863."
[fortheDeclaration #1134 quoting an idiot as a legal authority]Next time please just give a part of the article and link the rest.So was Lincoln impeached by Congress for violating his oath and taking this unconsititional action?
http://hometown.aol.com/gordonkwok/habeas_corpus.html
Please note that I am quoting from the same article at the same precise link.
http://hometown.aol.com/gordonkwok/habeas_corpus.html
Gordon Kwok
The Suspension of Habeas CorpusAnd Ex parte: Milligan
"Well, the only route that the Supreme Court could do to save Milligan's neck was to declare the law unconstitutional. The decision was a narrow 5 to 4 votes by the 9 Supreme Court Justices. The interesting coincident was that the majority 4 of the 5 votes were Lincoln appointees. The court opinion was written by Justice David Davis, Lincoln's old Eighth Circuit court friend from Illinois and Lincoln's 1860 presidential campaign manager, and concurred by Chief Justice Salmon Chase, Lincoln's ex-Secretary of Treasury, and Justices Noah Swayne, Samuel Miller and James Wayne."
Next time do not drag in and quote an idiot on AOL as a legal authority.
Next time at least find an "expert" who knows the difference between a UNANIMOUS decision and a 5-4 decision.
Kwok evidently has not bothered to READ the lengthy decision in Ex Parte Milligan, or he grossly misrepresents it. Kwok would have one believe that Davis wrote the opinion that held the military tribunal UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that Chief Justice Chase, and Justices Swayne, Miller, and Wayne concurred with Justice Davis in that holding, making up a 5-4 majority. Kwok has it bass-ackwards.
Of course, while you choose to lecture others about habeas corpus law, this proves conclusively that either you have not read Ex Parte Milligan, a basic, essential case, or you are unable to read and understand a court decision. This is not rocket science. The official published opinion includes the opinion of the court, and a CONCURRING opinion which is joined in by four justices. It does not require a law degree to notice that there is NO DISSENTING OPINION. The Opinion of the Court, when accompanied only by CONCURRING opinions, adds up to a UNANIMOUS decision.
EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) (9-0)
DECEMBER TERM, 1866.Ex Parte Milligan was decided UNANIMOUSLY. It was 9-zip.
The Court ruled UNANIMOUSLY that the trial of a civilian by a military tribunal while the civilian courts were open and functioning was UNLAWFUL.
ALL NINE JUSTICES HELD THE MILITARY TRIBUNAL TO BE UNLAWFUL.
IN ADDITION, FIVE OF THE JUSTICES HELD IT TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Those were DAVIS, GRIER, NELSON, CLIFFORD, and FIELD.
In a concurring opinion written by Chief Justice CHASE, joined by SWAYNE, MILLER, and WAYNE, these FOUR justices said, "But the opinion which has just been read goes further; and as we understand it, asserts not only that the military commission held in Indiana was not authorized by Congress, but that it was not in the power of Congress to authorize it; from which it may be thought to follow, that Congress has no power to indemnify the officers who composed the commission against liability in civil courts for acting as members of it. We cannot agree to this."
The CONCURRING justices are those who DISAGREED with the holding of the tribunal being UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Wayne (GA) was appointed by Jackson.
Nelson (NY) was appointed by Tyler.
Grier (PA) was appointed by Polk.
Clifford (ME) was appointed by Buchanan.
Chase (OH), Swayne (OH), Miller (IA), Davis (IL), and Field (CA) were appointed by Lincoln.While Kwok says "the majority 4 of the 5 votes were Lincoln appointees," he is dead wrong.
Again, the majority was 9-0. Four justices CONCURRED with the decision, but only held the tribunal UNLAWFUL but not UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Three of those four were Lincoln appointees. Two of the five who found the act UNCONSTITUTIONAL were LINCOLN appointees.
Find a different "expert." Preferably, find one whose "qualifications" include more than an AOL account.
The coolness of the border states toward compensated emancipation was particularly grievous to Lincoln, because it threwcold water on his other pet plan for the Negroes -- to send them out of the country. Lincoln's plan of compensated emancipation rested on the assumption that the lbierated slaves would not remain in America. It was not his intention to swell the free Negro population. In Lincoln's thinking, compensated emancipation was doomed unless it could be tied in with deportation.
SOURCE: Benjamin Quarles, Lincoln and the Negro, p. 115
[Lincoln] would get his point of view before the colored America by having a White House "interview" with a selected group of Negroes. Lincoln put the arrangement of the details of the meeting into the hands of the Reverend James Mitchell, a white man whom he had recently named Commissioner of Emigration, operating under the Interior Department.If the basis for Lincoln's choice was the appointee's knowledge of colonization, it was a good pick. Mitchell's interest in Negro deportation spanned some fifteen years, many of which were spent as secretary of the Indiana Colonization Board. Mitchell followed Lincoln to Washington, and on October 3, 1861, the President wrote to Secretary Seward asking that Mitchell "be cared for" as one "I know, and like." By the spring of the following year Mitchell had become African Officer in the Interior. He wrote to Lincoln on April 18, 1862, giving a historical sketch of the office he held, and offering to take over the execution of the law that set aside the $100,000 for colonization of District Negroes. A month later to the day, Mitchell issued a twenty-eight-page pamphlet, printed at government expense and addressed to Lincoln. Bearing a lengthy title, Letter on the Relation of the White and African Races in the United States, Showing the Necessity of the Colonization of the Latter, the pamphlet described the evils resulting from the presence of the Negro, the foremost of which was "the license of the races, which is giving to this continent a nation of bastards."
That Mitchell guy was quite a writer. He could make David Duke look like Freedom marcher.
And what did the Brigade Commander have to say about James Mitchell?
His program met with unrelenting opposition from conservatives; who attempted to remove him from office by impeachment on charges that included bribery and misuse of state funds. Long defeated the move after persuading 15 senators, a sufficient number to thwart impeachment, to sign a round robin that they would not vote to convict.. Get over asserting, frivolously and untruthfully, that a State or States leaving the Union breaks up the whole United States.
Well, it breaks up enough of it!
The separation would have made both weaker not stronger.
Would it have been possible to split without great trauma, possibly.
Yet the precedent is a very dangerous one, and that was what Lincoln was fighting against.
The South had agreed to the political system and the political system was still intact.
She had benefited from that system with the 3/4 rule and dominating the White House for years.
Now that the tables had turned she was going to pick up her marbles and go home?
The Democratic Party split over slavery.
Had not that split occured they would still have dominated the political arena.
Lincoln never denied the right of revolution and if the South had a right to revolt, let them make the case for it.
But secession was just a refusal to play by the rules that they had agreed to and had themselves profited from.
We can liken this to the 'blue'states wanting to leave the 'red'states because we now control Washington.
Bump for honesty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.