[fortheDeclaration]

You guys refuse to accept the fact that if Congress did not like what Lincoln was doing and thought it was unconsitutional they could have impeached him.

Was any motion to impeach even offered?

Maybe with a Civil War going on and all that entailed, the Congress was not overly concerned with the limited suspension of the writ.

[GOPcapitalist]

You guys refuse to accept the fact that if Congress did not like what Lincoln was doing and thought it was unconsitutional they could have impeached him.

The problem with that assertion is that it is neither factual nor an acceptable exercise in logic. Why? Because it arbitrarily assumes that the only means by which Congress can reject an action of the President that it doesn't like is by impeaching him - a logical absurdity on its face, especially given that only two presidents have ever been impeached. Applying your argument consistently one could presume upon this latter fact that only two presidents have ever been substantively opposed by Congress on anything, and we know that proposition to be inherently false.