Did the House impeach Lincoln?
No?
I guess they did not think he was that much a threat to constitutional freedom.
And Congress is suppose to be the check on Presidental tyranny via impeachment. Supposed to, but as we know from the Clinton case Congress often falls short of completing the task.
No, Clinton was Impeached, just not convicted.
The Democrats make the same mistake, saying that Clinton was not impeached.
Sorry, that your accusations against Lincoln have no historical validity, but you just go on continue living in the world of fantasy. More needless venom and invective, this time of the gratuitous sort.
Not at all, you just keep beating a dead horse.
I am sorry that history did not go the way you wanted it to, but it is reality and you have to deal with it.
Events were a little different, like a Civil War going on. ...or one of your own party being in the White House combined with the lingering threat of outright political persecution for members of the opposition party who spoke out too much or too loudly (Lincoln had the opposition leader Rep. Clement Vallandigham seized from his house, thrown in jail, and deported to canada). He also had hundreds of opposition newspapers shut down, an opposition U.S. senator expelled from the senate, another opposition former U.S. senator arrested, and half the maryland legislature put in chains.
Yea so....
A Civil War was going on.
What part of that sentence do you not understand?
And Davis violated no ones civil liberties?
I believe that Vallandighm was released to his beloved South wasn't he?
No one says that everything that Lincoln did would pass a strict consititutional test.
That is far from saying that he was guilty of being a tyrant.
No more then Davis was.
A typical non-sequitur. It simply does not follow from your premise - that the house didn't impeach Lincoln - that he must not have been a threat to freedom simply because (a) impeachment is a political process that is subject to political influence that could distort and protect a president even if he was a threat (see Clinton's senate vote for another example) and due to (b) the fact that he also happened to be harassing, intimidating, and imprisoning members of the political opposition who spoke out against him.
No, Clinton was Impeached, just not convicted.
...hence my point that the Senate FAILED in its duty with Clinton for political reasons.
The Democrats make the same mistake, saying that Clinton was not impeached.
Are you blind, stupid or both, ftD? I never said that Clinton was not impeached. He was not convicted in the Senate even though he was indisputably guilty of the articles of impeachment and should have been convicted on them (do you dispute that?), thus proving that political considerations can overcome justice in matters of impeachment.
Yea so.... A Civil War was going on. What part of that sentence do you not understand?
...and the Constitution holds firm in both times of war and peace. What part of that sentence do you not understand.
And Davis violated no ones civil liberties?
Quoth the ftD: "Squack! Tu quoque! Tu quoque! Davis did it too! Tu quoque!"
I believe that Vallandighm was released to his beloved South wasn't he?
The south didn't want him nor did he want to be there so he ended up in Canada till the end of the war.
No one says that everything that Lincoln did would pass a strict consititutional test.
...and deporting, harassing, and imprisoning members of the opposition party for criticizing your politics doesn't pass much of any constitutional test.
That is far from saying that he was guilty of being a tyrant.
Lincoln deported his opponents, threw congressmen and state officials in jail, got a senator kicked out of office, overthrew the state government of Missouri, placed judges under house arrest and unconstitutionally suspended their salaries, used military thugs to prevent courts from meeting to hear cases against him, and shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers for being critical of his policy. If not acts of tyranny, exactly what were all those acts?