Posted on 05/15/2019 8:56:25 AM PDT by Will not Live for another Man
Fellow Freepers,
As you all, collectively, are the smartest folks I could bring this to, I bring you this vanity...
Last night, my eighth grade son informed me his history teacher (yes public school, yes I know, the only saving grace is next year he will be in a trade school) told the class that the president could suspend the Constitution in a national emergency.
I dutifully told him that was hogwash, pulled out our Constitution and went through the president's Article II rights and duties. Clearly, suspending the Constitution is NOT one of them.
I composed a nice email to the teacher explaining my son apparently didn't understand the lesson and asking him to correct my son's impression.
The teacher just wrote back with some cockamamie link that claims the president does indeed have that power.
Am I or is the teacher incorrect?
Because the bar for habeas is high.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus I believe.
In its entirety? No. But parts of it officially have been briefly suspended in the past, as others have pointed out, and other parts ignored or trampled underfoot, in some cases for a century or more - gun rights, illegal search and seizure, etc.
To answer the question “can the president suspend the Constitution?”
No.
Neither can congress, nor the supreme court, nor the media, nor m*zzy members of congress.
There is a real possibility the next Democrat in the White House will do that. And likely if he does, congress will do nothing about it.
Note that I did not say “legally elected” to the office. I do not believe that the next Rat to “win” the election to that office will do so legally.
It wasn't an "Insurrection." It was states holding peaceful votes to leave the Union. Lincoln called it insurrection so that he could unlock the powers to use force to stop it.
It was not in fact an "Insurrection", and even Chief Justices Salmon P. Chase said "Secession is not rebellion."
Calling it an "insurrection" is a lie.
He could say we don't have the courts or judges for this so access is denied for all. There are laws for a fast trial that we can't meet right now. If they were Americans, they would be guaranteed a quick trial, but they are in the US illegally so they must go back to wait for their opportunity for a court.
The only real problem we are having right now is one judge has ruled that they can only stay confined for 21 days and must be let go in the US. But they are not here legally, so which law supersedes the other?
Couldn't Trump just suspend the right to stay here while waiting on a trial? The judge shouldn't be able to fight Federal law that says they get a speedy trial and don't belong in the US. What we have now is a court designed loophole to thwart Federal Law.
I agree 100%.
Thank you for the information/justification you have provided, especially the link, which was very informative.
The Constitution defines the states. Article IV, Section 4 states: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence"
Suspending the entire Constitution would Eliminate Congress, the Supreme Court, all Federal laws, and all States....ridiculous.
He did. But nothing in the Constitution clearly states that the President cannot do that if circumstances require it. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the question. So that's hardly suspending the Constitution.
A "rebellion" then.
I merely answered your question.
Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus without congressional or Supreme Court approval.
But if he's legally able to do so then that's not suspending the Constitution, or part of the Constitution. That's exercising a Constitutional power.
Thought I explained to you about the paradigm shift when the US was created. Leaving a Union is a right, not "rebellion."
Didn't know that. That would explain him having a major Stroke during his presidency.
God was protecting the US from him.
Rebellion is defined as "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government." A very accurate description of what the Southern states tried.
Thought I explained to you about the paradigm shift when the US was created. Leaving a Union is a right, not "rebellion."
You have given your opinion on the subject over and over and over again. I just think you're wrong.
He suspended "due process." He suspended "freedom of speech". He did anything he D@mn well pleased. He issued an *ARREST WARRANT* for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
And no, I don't want to hear any of your bullsh*t about this hasn't been proven. Two separate sources are good enough proof, especially when one of them was Lincoln's own body guard and good close personal friend.
Calm yourself - take some Midol or something.
It was a state of insurrection because Lincoln declared it to be a state of insurrection. The rebels firing on a US installation should have been your first clue.
excellent and informative comment thank you
Excellent post!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.