Replies

Nope, nor is impeachment the only process by which Congress may disapprove of a president's actions. In fact impeachment is probably the rarest of many options Congress can take to disapprove of a president's actions. The most common is simply killing a major bill that he wants, and that is exactly what Congress did to Lincoln to show its disapproval over his suspension of the writ.

Well, if Congress did not consider what Lincoln was doing was bad enough to warrent impeachment, I guess it wasn't all that bad!

So, why are you and Nolu beating a dead horse!

Congress did not regard Lincoln as a tyrant, if they did they would have impeached him as such.

They may not have like everything he, as President did, but what Congress does?

I do not know if you have read this essay before.

It is quite good.

I have only put in the conclusion, the link is below.

Conclusion In a sense, the "Nationalist" and the "Weak Compact" views are the easiest to hold. The "Nationalist" view sees the nation coming into being with "the people" ratifying the Constitution. In the process of that act, the people give their sovereignty to the national government. The "Weak Compact" view sees the nation as existing in states which grant powers, but not sovereignty to a national federation. Thus, the "Nationalists" cannot agree with secession because it is an act of sovereignty no longer existing in the states, but given to the national government. The "Weak Compact" adherents cannot but support secession in principle because it remains a concomitant of sovereignty that the states have retained.

However, it is apparent that James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," supported a third approach, which he denominated "in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both."35 Thus, the states, national government, and the people retain a measure of sovereignty. However, since the states had unanimously granted three-fourths of the states the ability, through the Constitution, to amend the document governing the wielding of power and sovereignty at a national level, it was obvious that individual states could not secede and claim a constitutional prerogative for doing so any more than a majority of the states could vote to withdraw from another. Still less could they do so in the name of claiming a prerogative to systematically violate the private property rights of a significant majority within their borders.

While the biblical warrant, if any, for any of the above analysis will have to wait for another discussion on another day, the topic of constitutional secession is one, I am tempted to say, that we will have to fight about.

http://www.nationalreform.org/statesman/98/refight.html

Well, if Congress did not consider what Lincoln was doing was bad enough to warrent impeachment, I guess it wasn't all that bad!

That's some strange logic you use there. Let's apply it elsewhere. Evidently congress did not consider Whitewater, Chinagate, Cattlegate, Vince Fostergate, Travelgate and all the other non-Lewinsky scandals of Clinton bad enough to warrant impeachment on their basis so I guess none of them were bad either. And Congress didn't consider Teapot Dome bad enough to impeach Harding or any major figures under him or Credit Mobilier bad enough to impeach Grant or any major figures under him, so I guess none of them were anything bad either! And Watergate? Well, Congress never quite made it to impeaching Nixon either...must not have been anything bad. Funny how all these scandals work out for the better when the only means of expressing disapproval is limited to impeachment...which must also mean that there have only been two major scandals in American presidential history!