Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur
I have, and as had been pointed out time and again the question of whether or not the president has the power to suspend the writ has never been definitively answered by the Supreme Court.

Best available information would indicate that the right is reserved to the congress, not to mention that there are a great many Americans who do not rely on lawyers to read the plaintext of the constitution to them like children. "Interpretation" is something that is done with art, not government. Lincoln's practice of government could, at best, be described as 'artful.'

President Lincoln carried out no act of war, in fact war was never declared by the Lincoln adminsitration. Nor should it have since war is conducted between sovereign nations. One does not declare war on rebellious parts of your own country.

Untrue. A war among factions of a single country is still called a civil war. Did Lincoln never refer to it as a 'war'? You'll have to do better than to deny that a war occurred.

987 posted on 07/01/2003 8:34:35 AM PDT by Gianni (carpe mustalem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 975 | View Replies ]


To: Gianni
Best available information would indicate that the right is reserved to the congress, not to mention that there are a great many Americans who do not rely on lawyers to read the plaintext of the constitution to them like children.

Your interpretation means nothing in the grand scheme of things. The fact that I would tend to agree that the founding fathers meant for the power to suspend habeas corpus to be held by Congress also means nothing. The fact is that the Constitution does not explicitly state that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus, and until the Supreme Court rules on the issue then it had not been definitively decided. Is that plain text enough for you?

1,066 posted on 07/01/2003 7:35:40 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 987 | View Replies ]

To: Gianni
Untrue. A war among factions of a single country is still called a civil war. Did Lincoln never refer to it as a 'war'? You'll have to do better than to deny that a war occurred.

Referring to it as the 'Civil War' didn't come into widespread use until the turn of the century. Prior to that it was officially referred to as War of Southern Rebellion. And a rebellion is what it was. There was no opposing country to declare war on, just the southern states. And President Lincoln had no need to go to congress for a declaration of war to try and quell a rebellion. He had all the authority he needed in the Militia Act.

1,068 posted on 07/01/2003 7:43:54 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 987 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson