A union where the rule of law takes a backseat.
I could feel the contempt oozing from your words. There's only one problem with your "inflexible" thinking. As Farber notes,
"[T]he Constitution itself allows deviations from ordinary rules in wars and other emergencies.... [T]he President can call upon broad, though not unlimited, power to protect the federal government and its operations. In the theater of war, the Constitution contemplates replacement of the normal legal regine by the laws of war and expanded military authority even over civilians. And deference to the courts has its limits, particularly after the power to suspend habeas corpus is invoked." (pg 24)
Wars are fought to be won. Lincoln knew that, and fought the ACW accordingly. There was no "essential liberty" present at the beginning of the war, that wasn't also present at the end of the war.
There is more than one problem with your source, Farber.
With Daniel Farber's insight into sovereignty as "an almost metaphysical concept -- some secret essence of legal potency that cannot be detected directly, but only as a kind of normative aura," he provides comic relief, as well as a source of wisdom for desperate Blue State Brigadeers. Brigadeers, feel the Force!
FARBER'S WISDOM
In the American context, sovereignty often seems to function as an almost metaphysical concept -- some secret essence of legal potency that cannot be detected directly, but only as a kind of normative aura. One hotly debated question, for example, is whether the populations of the various states existed (or still exist) as separate entities acting together as a conglomeration, or rather as a single entity acting through the agency of multiple subgroups. This is reminiscent of medieval disputes about the nature of the Trinity. It is not in any real sense a question of fact or even one of law.
SOURCE: Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, 2003, p. 29
-----------------------------------------
Ideas about sovereignty may also color the understanding of particular constitutional issues. Thus, while it may not be useful to ask who really had sovereignty in 1776 or 1789, it is potentially useful to ask who was believed to have sovereignty then.
SOURCE: Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, 2003, p. 30
------------------------------------------
A contract between the peoples of the separate states might well be termed a compact. The critical question was whether a national social compact arose at some point, binding all Americans together into one people, or whether the only real social compacts were at the state level, with those political societies then forming a second-level compact. The "compact theory" of sovereignty refers to this second-level compact, which is considered to have a less fundamental status than the social compacts establishing each state. If this all seems rather aridly metaphysical, that's because it is.
SOURCE: Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, 2003, p. 32
---------------------------
Because of its virtually metaphysical nature, it is hard to answer the theoretical question of whether the state peoples wholly retained their separate identity, or whether adoption of the Constitution signified the existence of unified "People of the United States." To the extent that the Framers had any shared understanding on this point, which is itself somewhat dubious, they probably leaned toward the view that ratification signified the emergence of a national People. On the whole, however, the best conclusion seems to be Madison's -- that the United States was unique and could not be considered either a consolidated nation or a compact of sovereign states.
SOURCE: Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, 2003, pp. 82-83
------------------------------
Still, it would be a mistake to view the Framers as purely nationalistic. During ratification, the most direct discussion of the source of the Constitution's legitimacy was in Federalist 39. Inquiring into the formation of the new Constitution, Madison explained that ratification takes place by the authority of the people -- "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." Madison went on to call ratification a "federal and not a national act," that is, "the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation." This passage seems at odds with Lincoln's theory, but leaves open the possibility that ratification resulted in the creation of a unified American people.
SOURCE: Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, 2003, p. 38
---------------------------------
Really!? Where is the clause allowing ANY part to be suspended or tossed aside in times of war? Per 9-0 vote in ex parte Milligan:
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.