Commentary: Truth blown away in sugarcoated 'Gone With the Wind'

sacbee ^ | 11-13-04

[nolu chan]

Your post is content-free and says nothing, but it says nothing with fervor befitting an advocate for insanity.

[capitan_refugio]

"Capitan_refugio, proud of having avoided military service, commenting on military retirement pay earned with 20 years active duty."

nolu coward, master of lies. I did not avoid service. I was not drafted, as the draft had ended a couple of years before I was eligible. I went to college instead.

You first made a point of denigrating public service, not me. So stop you whining. It is unbecoming of you.

[capitan_refugio]

Low life coward - true to you new screen name.

"Run away! Run away!"

[capitan_refugio]

"On the other hand, you are known as needledick the bug------." I had to look up that term. Only a fag--t like you would be familiar with the term! LOL

[capitan_refugio]

Hairball. Old misrepresentations made by an old fag--t with a worn out bunghole.

[nolu chan]

[jsuati #1718] The latter never thought of themselves as out of the Union.

This is not only B.S., but it is irrelevant B.S.

There actual status is what matters, not your idiotic Miss Cleo channeling of what they thought.

Michael Dorf writes:

Third, Lincoln claimed that the Union was older than the Constitution. In his view, it dated as far back as the Articles of Association of 1774, when the signatory parties were all colonies of England. Lincoln's claim, however, does not respond to the secessionist argument rooted in Article VII; on the secessionists' view, the Constitution implicitly affirmed a right to secede from the Union, regardless of the pre-Constitution character of the Union.

Moreover, experience in the very early days of the Constitution belies Lincoln's assertion. Nationalists frequently claim that the states were never sovereign: As colonies, they were under British dominion, and they declared and won their independence as the United States. Thus, the nationalists opine, there was no time during which any of the states exercised full sovereignty. Yet, as Professor Levinson has noted, that is not entirely true: North Carolina and Rhode Island, which did not ratify the Constitution until after President Washington was inaugurated, were treated by the new national government as essentially foreign sovereigns until they formally accepted the Constitution. That treatment, Levinson argues, and I tend to agree, indicates that all the states were in an important sense sovereign when they entered into the Constitution.

Michael C. Dorf is the Michael I. Sovern Professor of Law at Columbia University in New York City. His book, Constitutional Law Stories, is published by Foundation Press, and tells the stories behind fifteen leading constitutional cases.

Sanford Levinson is the W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law and Professor of Government at the University of Texas (Austin). An internationally eminent scholar of constitutional law, Professor Levinson also teaches and writes about professional responsibility, jurisprudence, and political theory. He is author of Constitutional Faith (Princeton 1988) and Written in Stone (Duke 1998).

---

[jsuati #1718] In fact R.I.'s governor wrote a letter to Washington essentially begging him to help make sure that the state was NOT treated as another country.

In place of your misbegotten revision of Governor Collins, let us get it straight what the Governor of R.I. ACTUALLY said:

Look at how it is addressed:

To the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the eleven United States of America in Congress assembled:

And look at some of the content:

"Our not having acceded to or adopted the new system of government formed and adopted by most of our sister States, we doubt not, has given uneasiness to them."

We are induced to hope that we shall not be altogether considered as foreigners having no particular affinity or connection with the United States; but that trade and commerce, upon which the properity of this State much depends, will be preserved as free and open between this State and the United States, as our different situations at present can possibly admit....

---

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS,
In General Assembly, September Session, 1789.

To the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the eleven United States of America in Congress assembled:

"The critical situation in which the people of this State are placed engages us to make these assurances, on their behalf, of their attachment and friendship to their sister States, and of their disposition to cultivate mutual harmony and friendly intercourse. They know themselves to be a handful, comparatively viewed, and, although they now stand as it were alone, they have not separated themselves or departed from the principles of the Confederation, which was formed by the sister States in their struggle for freedom and in the hour of danger....

"Our not having acceded to or adopted the new system of government formed and adopted by most of our sister States, we doubt not, has given uneasiness to them. That we have not seen our way clear to it, consistently with our idea of the principles upon which we all embarked together, has also given pain to us. We have not doubted that we might thereby avoid present difficulties, but we have apprehended future mischief....

Can it be thought strange that, with these impressions, they [the people of this State] should wait to see the proposed system organized and in operation? -- to see what further checks and securities would be agreed to and established by way of amendments before they could adopt it as a Constitution of government for themselves and their posterity? ...

We are induced to hope that we shall not be altogether considered as foreigners having no particular affinity or connection with the United States; but that trade and commerce, upon which the properity of this State much depends, will be preserved as free and open between this State and the United States, as our different situations at present can possibly admit....

We feel ourselves attached by the strongest ties of friendship, kindred, and interest, to our sister States; and we can not, without the greatest reluctance, look to any other quarter for those advantages of commercial intercourse which we conceive to be more natural and reciprocal between them and us.

I am, at the request and in behalf of the General Assembly, your most obedient, humble servant.

(Signed) John Collins, Governor.

His Excellency, the President of the United States.

[American State Papers, Vol I, Miscellaneous.]

---

[capitan_refugio]

"They (1) ruled him to have illegally arrested the process of the court (which would qualify as a contempt of the court's authority) and (2) ruled him to have directly assumed the responsibility of Porter, who they had ruled in contempt of court."

You have only posted your interpretation, twice.

As it was, there was no legal process to "illegally arrest." None of those federal judges had the appropriate jurisdiction.

"As for the high crimes and misdemeanors he committed, they are found in his willful arrest and obstruction of the legal processes of the federal judiciary."

Your novel legal theories have been found wanting. Ride the dead horse if you wish, it is taking you nowhere? BTW, have you come up with an authoritative source who makes the same novel charges as you? If not, then why not?

[nolu chan]

Old misrepresentations made by an old fag--t with a worn out bunghole.

It seems Lincoln and Joshua Speed and David Derickson have your brain addled.

[nolu chan]

The capitan_refugio goof list.

capitan_refugio #237 8/29/2004 to GOPcap argued that "Bollman was not about habeas corpus...." Habeas Corpus, by Eric M. Freedman, NYU Press, 2001, devotes three entire chapters to Bollman.

capitan_refugio #384 8/31/2004 to nc purported three quotes to be about the SCOTUS case of Scott v. Sandford which were actually about the Missouri case of Scott v. Emerson.

capitan_refugio #386 8/31/2004 to nc vividly retold the story of how SCOTUS and CJ Taney decided the case of Lemmon v. The People. The case never went to the U.S. Supreme Court.

capitan_refugio #649 9/03/2004 to nc purported to quote from the Opinion of the Supreme Court in The Amy Warwick. The quote was of the argument of Mr. Carlisle, an attorney in the case of The Brilliante.

capitan_refugio #1370 9/18/2004 to nc attributed a quote to "Hamdi footnote." It was neither Hamdi nor a footnote. It was from a petition by an attorney.

---

[nolu chan]

I guess you can't spell or you can't count dashes.

All you can do is LIE.

capitan_refugio homepage: Worked for Reagan in 1976 while in college

To 4CJ on late, great deleted thread (Confederate Constitution to be unveiled for holiday) capitan_refugio #1804 6/2/2004 I worked for him in the 1976 primary campaign and in the 1980 campaign while I was in college.

To 4CJ on late, great deleted thread (Confederate Constitution to be unveiled for holiday) capitan_refugio #1804 6/2/2004 "By 1984, I was prohibited from participating in partisan political campaigns, by the Hatch Act."

capitan_refugio #412 10/24/2004 "I worked in Reagan's campaigns in 1976, 1980, and 1984."

[nolu chan]

Here is a solution whereby the nation can rid itself of the trash that is polluting it, and relegate the trash of the Freeper world to foreign status.

---

LINK

Declaration of Expulsion: A Modest Proposal
It's Time to Reconfigure the United States

by Mike Thompson
Posted Nov 3, 2004

[From the author: This is an essay I've been working on for the past several weeks, updated moments ago with what appears to be Bush's final number of victory states (31) once the nonsense of provisional votes in Ohio is overcome.

As an admitted "modest proposal" (a la Swift's satiric story of the same name), it is nevertheless serious in pointing out the cancer that continues to threaten our body politic.]

Branded unconstitutional by President Abraham Lincoln, the South's secession from the American Union ultimately sparked "The Civil War" (a name that was rejected by Southerners, who correctly called it "The War Between the States," for the South never sought to 1] seize the central government or 2] rule the other side, two requisites for a civil war).

No state may leave the Union without the other states' approval, according to Lincoln's doctrine--an assertion that ignores the Declaration of Independence, which was the vital basis for all 13 American colonies' unilateral secession from the British Union eight decades earlier. Lincoln's grotesque legal argument also disregards a state's inherent right of secession which many scholars believe is found in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Meantime, America has become just as divided as it was a century and a half ago, when it writhed in Brother-vs.-Brother War. Instead of wedge issues like slavery, federal subsidies for regional business, and high tariffs, society today is sundered by profound, insoluble Culture War conflicts (such as abortion and gay marriage), and debate about our role abroad (shall we remain the world's leader, or become an unprincipled chump for the cabal of globalist sybarites who play endless word-games inside the United Nations and European Union sanctuaries?).

For many decades, conservative citizens and like-minded political leaders (starting with President Calvin Coolidge) have been denigrated by the vilest of lies and characterizations from hordes of liberals who now won't even admit that they are liberals--because the word connotes such moral stink and political silliness. As a class, liberals no longer are merely the vigorous opponents of the Right; they are spiteful enemies of civilization's core decency and traditions.

Defamation, never envisioned by our Founding Fathers as being protected by the First Amendment, flourishes and passes today for acceptable political discourse. Movies, magazines, newspapers, radio/TV programs, plays, concerts, public schools, colleges, and most other public vehicles openly traffic in slander and libel. Hollywood salivated over the idea of placing another golden Oscar into Michael Moore'sfat hands, for his Fahrenheit 9/11 jeremiad, the most bogus, deceitful film documentary since Herr Hitler and Herr Goebbels gave propaganda a bad name.

When they tire of showering conservative victims with ideological mud, liberals promote the only other subjects with which they feel conversationally comfortable: Obscenity and sexual perversion. It's as if the genes of liberals have rendered them immune to all forms of filth.

As a final insult, liberal lawyers and judges have become locusts of the Left, conspiring to destroy democracy itself by excreting statutes and courtroom tactics that fertilize electoral fraud and sprout fields of vandals who will cast undeserved and copious ballots on Election Day.

The truth is, America is not just broken--it is becoming irreparable. If you believe that recent years of uncivil behavior are burdensome, imagine the likelihood of a future in which all bizarre acts are the norm, and a government-booted foot stands permanently on your face.

That is why the unthinkable must become thinkable. If the so-called "Red States" (those that voted for George W. Bush) cannot be respected or at least tolerated by the "Blue States" (those that voted for Al Gore and John Kerry), then the most disparate of them must live apart--not by secession of the former (a majority), but by expulsion of the latter. Here is how to do it.

Having been amended only 17 times since 10 vital amendments (the Bill of Rights) were added at the republic's inception, the U.S. Constitution is not easily changed, primarily because so many states (75%, now 38 of 50) must agree. Yet, there are 38 states today that may be inclined to adopt, let us call it, a "Declaration of Expulsion," that is, a specific constitutional amendment to kick out the systemically troublesome states and those trending rapidly toward anti-American, if not outright subversive, behavior. The 12 states that must go: California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware. Only the remaining 38 states would retain the name, "United States of America." The 12 expelled mobs could call themselves the "Dirty Dozen," or individually keep their identity and go their separate ways, probably straight to Hell.

A difficult-to-pass constitutional amendment, however, is not necessary. There is an equally lawful route that mercifully would be both easier and faster. Inasmuch as Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union," it is reasonable that the same congressional majority may expel a state from the Union. Is there, after all, any human organization in existence (including a family or law firm) that may not disown, disinherit, ostracize, alienate or expel diabolical members? Whether the nation is purged of these 12 states via the Constitution or statute, the process of elimination must begin now, for the need of societal detoxification has waxed so overwhelmingly clear.

Examine the "Mostly Mainstream 38" and "Fringe 12." Of the 50 states, Bush won 30 in the 2000 presidential election against Gore, and 31 in 2004 against Kerry. More dramatic is the huge disparity among counties. Of 3,112 counties nationwide, Bush in 2000, for example, won 2,434, a crushing 78% majority. (In the counties composing "Bush USA" live approximately 150 million persons; in the 678 of "Gore/Kerry USA," 140 million.) Gore/Kerry denizens are concentrated in the metropolises of the East and West Coasts and those big cities on the Great Lakes or Mississippi River. Other significant pockets of ultraliberal extremists may be found in intellectually incestuous college towns and pro-big-government state capitals, along the estranged and overwhelmed Mexican border, and in Dixie's welfare-addicted Cotton Belt.

The demographics revealed by the two most recent presidential elections are radically different and have resulted in "Two Americas" (but not the simplistic "Two Americas" [one rich, one poor] envisioned by Kerry'sMarxist-tongued running mate, John Edwards):

• BUSH USA is predominantly white; devoutly Christian (mostly Protestant); openly, vigorously heterosexual; an open land of single-family homes and ranches; economically sound (except for a few farms), but not drunk with cyberworld business development, and mainly English-speaking, with a predilection for respectfully uttering "yes, ma'am" and "yes, sir."

• GORE/KERRY USA is ethnically diverse; multi-religious, irreligious or nastily antireligious; more sexually liberated (if not in actual practice, certainly in attitude); awash with condo canyons and other high-end real estate bordered by sprawling, squalid public housing or neglected private homes, decidedly short of middle-class neighborhoods; both high tech and oddly primitive in its commerce; very artsy, and Babelesque, with abnormally loud speakers. Bush USA also is far safer, its murder rate being about 16% of the homicidal binge that plagues Gore/Kerry USA--2.1 per 100,000 residents, compared with 13.2 per 100,000 (from a study by Professor Joseph Olson, Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota).

A downsized, post-expulsion United States still would be geographically big enough (and personally generous enough) to welcome millions of authentic refugees from the ousted former states, real Americans who crave lower taxes, smaller government, safer neighborhoods, more secure borders, greater moral leadership, and all the other aspects of a markedly better society-- one that spawns harmony, not cacophony; excellence, not dependence; justice, not histrionics; education, not brainwashing; enterprise, not welfare, and Godliness, not devilishness. As for the dozen ex-American states, they could always petition the UN and EU for foreign aid. Moreover, with any good luck (or bon chance), socialist Canada would annex our jettisoned territory, eh?

---

[GOPcapitalist]

You have only posted your interpretation, twice.

There you go again, capitan. As the record of this thread plainly shows, I directly quoted the court's ruling, which says in the plainest of language that Lincoln obstructed the court. Try as you may, there are some things you simply cannot fib about and get away with.

As it was, there was no legal process to "illegally arrest."

Hence the word illegal.

None of those federal judges had the appropriate jurisdiction.

The Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave them their jurisdiction, says otherwise.

BTW, have you come up with an authoritative source who makes the same novel charges as you?

Considering that the Murphy decision was virtually forgotten to history until it was revived here on FR earlier this year, I don't believe there is much of anything out there that even discusses it beyond what's been noted here. That being the case, I'm content to rely upon the decision itself as a primary source, which is more authoritative than any running commentary one of your leftist court historians of choice could ever provide.

[capitan_refugio]

When the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, according the Constitution, the Judiciary Act of 1789 is of no consequence. One cannot obstruct a court that has no jurisdiction.

Who again, is your authoritative source?

[capitan_refugio]

You seem to have a calculation problem.

I was in college during the 1976 and 1980 presidential campaigns. (As you must know, Reagan lost the nomination to Pres. Ford in 1976 - there was only a primary in California.) On both of those, I worked directly for the campaign. (In 1980, the state campaign office was just a short distance from campus.) By 1984 I was a federal employee, covered by the Hatch Act. There were (and are) certain prohibitions about participation in partisan political campaigns. One such prohibition is raising money for a candidate. There are others as well. Yet, a federal employee does not waive all of his or her rights just because they are employed by the federal government. There are activities that are permissible. To the extent that I was allowed to, I worked for Reagan's re-election in 1984.

I don't know what your comprehension problem is. This is pretty straight forward. And as I said before - easily proved.

So are you going to keep up the smear job, coward? Do you care to put your money where your mouth is? Low life trolls like you are an embarrassment to FR.

[capitan_refugio]

5000 posts and just 5 "goofs"? Not a bad ratio. You have made dozens of misrepresentation is just this thread, liar.

[nolu chan]

[capitan_refugio #1711] Merryman's situation, as a member and officer of the disloyal Maryland militia engaged in sabotage, is much more like that of Quirin than than Milligan.

[capitan_refugio #1711] I find it interesting, though, that you make the same case for Merryman (not being subject to the laws of war) that the American-born nazi saboteur Haupt made for himself. John Merryman most certainly could have been tried by a military tribunal, if that is what the government had wished to do.

Of course, the Court ruled that Milligan was inapplicable to Quirin.

Petitioners, and especially petitioner Haupt, stress the pronouncement of this Court in the Milligan case, 4 Wall. page 121, that the law of war 'can never be applied to citizens in states which have upheld the authority of the government, and where the courts are open and their process unobstructed'. Elsewhere in its opinion, 4 Wall. at pages 118, 121, 122, and 131, the Court was at pains to point out that Milligan, a citizen twenty years resident in Indiana, who had never been a resident of any of the states in rebellion, was not an enemy belligerent either entitled to the status of a prisoner of war or subject to the penalties imposed upon unlawful belligerents. We construe the Court's statement as to the inapplicability of the law of war to Milligan's case as having particular reference to the facts before it. From them the Court concluded that Milligan, not being a part of or associated with the armed forces of the enemy, was a non-belligerent, not subject to the law of war save as -- in circumstances found not there to be present and not involved here -- martial law might be constitutionally established.

The Court's opinion is inapplicable to the case presented by the present record.

Unilke the rape of the Constitution in Merryman, Quirin et al were actually charged with read charges, including specifications. You will recall that in Merryman, General Cadwallader documented that he did not have a clue as to why Merryman was being held.

On July 3, 1942, the Judge Advocate General's Department of the Army prepared and lodged with the Commission the following charges against petitioners, supported by specifications:

1. Violation of the law of war.
2. Violation of Article 81 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of relieving or attempting to relieve, or corresponding withor giving intelligence to, the enemy.
3. Violation of Article 82, defining the offense of spying.
4. Conspiracy to commit the offenses alleged in charges 1, 2 and 3.

And indeed, the Court found that Specification 1 was all they needed.

Specification 1 of the First charge is sufficient to charge all the petitioners with the offense of unlawful belligerency, trial of which is within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and the admitted facts affirmatively show that the charge is not merely colorable or without foundation.

Specification 1 states that petitioners 'being enemies of the United States and acting for ... the German Reich, a belligerent enemy nation, secretly and covertly passed, in civilian dress, contrary to the law of war, through the military and naval lines and defenses of the United States ... and went behind such lines, contrary to the law of war, in civilian dress ... for the purpose of committing ... hostile acts, and, in particular, to destroy certain war industries, war utilities and war materials within the United States'.

This specification so plainly alleges violation of the law of war as to require but brief discussion of petitioners' contentions.

Clearly there is no connection between the case against Quirin and that of Merryman.

I find it interesting, though, that case for Quirin involves someone serving a ruthless insane dictator with an insatiable lust for power, a victim of syphilis, possessed of racism, and who initated a war which took millions of lives. Indeed, there any many similarities to Lincoln. Of course, neither leader was impeached or convicted of criminal misconduct.

[nolu chan]

As Rehnquist writes on page 44,

Following Lincoln's justification, in his July 4 speech to Congress, for disregarding Taney's Merryman decision, [Attorney General] Bates issued an opinion justifying the President's action. It was not a very good opinion. It essentially argued thateach of the three branches of the federal government established by the Constitution was coequal with and independent of the other two. The President was thus not subordinate to the judicial branch, and so the latter could not order him, or his subordinates, to free Merryman. This proposition had been refuted by Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison more than half a century earlier.

Bates also described the suspension of habeas corpus as a "political" rather than a "judicial" matter and on that ground as well not subject to judicial intervention. The opinion would persuade only those who were already true believers.

However, current day Lincolnpimps wallow in that garbage which was so rightly dismissed by Rehnquist.

Rehnquist hit the nail on the head when he said that Lincoln's reasoning had been refuted more than a half century earlier by Chief Justice Marshall and that the Bates opinion pursuant to Lincoln's heresy was a poor one and would persuade only those who were already true believers.

Lincoln was lawfully REQUIRED to comply with the decision in Merryman. Instead, he chose to rape the Constitution.

[nolu chan]

[nc] "When the INDEMNITY ACT OF 1863 was passed ..."

[cr] I find no reference for that legislation in the codes. It must be a misnomer.

In using the name "Indemnity Act" to designate the law of March 3, 1863, contemporary usage has been followed. Senator Trumbull and others referred to the measure while under debate as the "Indemnity Bill," and the same designation appeared in the heading of the record, as well as in many other places. Cong. Globe, 37 Cong., 3 sess., pp. 1459, 1479.)

Source: James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, Revised Edition, 1951, Chapter 11, "The Indemnity Act of 1863," p. 189, footnote 8.

If you look at HR 591, as recorded on Dec 9, 1862, the working title was "An Act to indemnify the President and other Persons for suspending the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus and acts done in pursuance thereof." It also came with a preamble which explained the reasons for the proposed Act:

The Indemnity Bill was passed on March 3, 1863.

In the House:

March 2, 1863.

THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.

INDEMNITY BILL.

The SPEAKER. The hour of one o'clock hav­ing arrived the vote will now be taken, by previ­ous order of the House, on agreeing to the report of the committee of conference on the indemnity bill

Mr. ALLEN, of Ohio, called for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question, was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 99, nays 44; as follows:

* * *

Source: Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 3rd Session, March 2, 1863. (Page 1479)

IMAGE p. 1479, CG, 2 Mar 1863

In the Senate:

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873
MONDAY, March 2, 1863.

Monday, March 2, 1863

TEXT

Page 380

IMAGE p380

Mr. President: The House of Representatives has agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the bill (H. R. 591) to indemnify the President and other persons for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and acts done in pursuance thereof; and

Page 382

IMAGE p382

Mr. Trumbull, from the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the bill (H. R. 591) to indemnify the President and other persons for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and acts done in pursuance thereof, submitted the following report:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the bill (H. R. 591) to indemnify the President and other persons for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and acts done in pursuance thereof, and the Senate's amendment thereto, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend, and do recommend, to their respective houses that the Senate recede from their said amendment, and agree to the said House bill, amended to read as follows, to wit:

AN ACT relating to habeas corpus, and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases.

Page 397

IMAGE p397

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the bill (H. R. 591) to indemnify the President and other persons for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and acts done in pursuance thereof; and

Page 399

IMAGE p399

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Etheridge, its Clerk:

Mr. President: The House of Representatives has agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the bill (H. R. 591) to indemnify the President and other persons for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and acts done in pursuance thereof; and....

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873
TUESDAY, March 3, 1863.

TEXT

Page 400

IMAGE p400

Mr. President: The House of Representatives has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

* * *

The Speaker of the House of Representatives having signed sixteen enrolled bills (S. 435, S. 483, S. 526, S. 534, S. 536, S. 537, S. 540, S. 543, S. 548, S. 557, S. 562, S. 564, S. 565, H. R. 226, H. R. 523, and H. R. 591) and two enrolled resolutions, (S. 129 and S. 133,) I am directed to bring them to the Senate for the signature of its President.

Mr. Howe reported from the committee that they had examined and found duly enrolled the following bills:

-- H. R. 226. An act to amend "An act to establish a court for the investigation of claims against the United States," approved February 24, 1855.

-- H. R. 591. An act relating to habeas corpus, and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases.

-- H. R. 523. An act to promote the efficiency of the corps of engineers, of the ordnance department, and for other purposes.

The President pro tempore signed the enrolled bills (S. 435, S. 483, S. 526, S. 534, S. 536, S. 537, S. 540, S. 543, S. 548, S. 557, S. 562, S. 564, S. 565) and the enrolled joint resolutions (S. 129 and S. 133) yesterday reported to have been examined, and the enrolled bills (H. R. 226, H. R. 523, and H. R. 591) last reported to have been examined, and they were delivered to the committee to be presented to the President of the United States.

[nolu chan]

Um, lets see how many times we can show that a backward culture survives its encounter with a rising, powerful forward moving one. Seems like the number is ZERO.

HAITI

Also, the rest of the United States have thus far survived the backward cultures of California, Illinois, and New England.

[nolu chan]

Since when does the Supreme Court have to "okay" every action of another branch of government?

The Supreme Court is not called upon to "okay" every action of another branch of government.

However, in the case of Merryman, by properly brought suit, the decision of the court was rendered upon the UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions of the Constitutional rapist known as the Great Usurper, Abraham Lincoln.

In cr #1685 you said, "No Supreme Court ever directly ruled on the constitutionality of Lincoln's action with regard to the suspension (of the privilege of) the writ of habeas corpus."

To the contrary, by an In-Chambers Opinion of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional rapist known as the Great Usurper Abraham Lincoln was speicifcally given chapter and verse of the history of the law and informed precisely and specifically how and why he was in violation of the Constitution.

As Chief Justice Rehnquist observed on page 44 of All the Laws But One,

Following Lincoln's justification, in his July 4 speech to Congress, for disregarding Taney's Merryman decision, [Attorney General] Bates issued an opinion justifying the President's action. It was not a very good opinion. It essentially argued thateach of the three branches of the federal government established by the Constitution was coequal with and independent of the other two. The President was thus not subordinate to the judicial branch, and so the latter could not order him, or his subordinates, to free Merryman. This proposition had been refuted by Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison more than half a century earlier.

The Constitutional rapist known as the Great Usurper Abraham Lincoln was well aware that his actions were UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but his lust for power was such that he did not care and he proceeded to rape the Constitution he had sworn to uphold.