Can the President Suspend the Constitution?

5/15/2019 | Vanity

[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?

[DoodleDawg]

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.

All of which were subject to review by the Supreme Court. Except for your last claim which is just myth.

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.

Of course they're good enough for you. When added to the voices in your head they form a quorum. Never mind what all the biographers say, your imagination trumps everyone.

[Political Junkie Too]

Suspending the entire Constitution would Eliminate Congress, the Supreme Court, all Federal laws, and all States...

Not the states. The states were founded via the Declaration of Independence and would still remain as sovereign governments.

The states would essentially be retaking the powers that were delegated by them to the federal government.

-PJ

[DiogenesLamp]

Rebellion is defined as "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government."

As I have explained to you many times, the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE grants states the right to abolish their government when they perceive it as destructive to their interests.

@$$hole plurality winner doesn't get to come along and throw out the natural right expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Additionally, there was no consequential usage of arms until @$$hole plurality winner Lincoln sent warships to attack them.

Yes, if you send gunboats to shoot at people, they will respond with arms. Absolutely!

If Lincoln didn't want a contest of arms, he should not have started a contest of arms.

The REBELLION was on the part of Lincoln who did not respect the State's right to reassume the powers they gave up when they ratified the Constitution.

You have given your opinion on the subject over and over and over again. I just think you're wrong.

You want to believe what you want to believe. You will twist and bend and shape any information to fit this world view you wish to have, and no amount of facts or reason will dent it.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm calm. I just wanted to make it big enough so that other people whom didn't know about it could see it.

When people read through a thread, sometimes their eye catches on something that attracts their attention. I suspect a lot of people are unaware that Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for Judge Tanney.

[HotHunt]

Like I said, you asked a simple question and I answered it.

Not sure why you're going on and on about this issue.

[DiogenesLamp]

It was a state of insurrection because Lincoln declared it to be a state of insurrection.

Exactly! He declared it to be an insurrection, and he would lock up anyone who disagreed with his claim that it was.

Without calling it an "insurrection", he could not justify using his military powers to stop it. Only by putting the label of "Insurrection" on it, could he get people to go along with invading other states.

The rebels firing on a US installation should have been your first clue.

Nobody was going to fire until the arrival of the ships proved that yes, Lincoln meant to use force to control the Southern states.

Seriously, read the d@mn message traffic. It was the arrival of the ships that convinced them that Lincoln was indeed going to fight them.

No ships arriving, Anderson leaves on the 15th of April, just as he said he would. No cannon fire from either side.

[Political Junkie Too]

Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus without congressional or Supreme Court approval.

I'm curious, not debating...

The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is in Article I Section 9 of the Constitution, which is generally the limits on Congressional power.

Questions:

Where does it say that any branch must "approve" a suspension of habeas corpus? It simply says that Congress may not suspend habeas corpus except during rebellion or invasion.

I know that some powers of one branch are written into the definitional text of other branches (e.g., advice and consent is in Article II Section 2). Is the suspension of habeas corpus a power only given to Congress via its existence in Article I? Can the President exercise it, too? If so, does that mean the Supreme Court can do it, too?

-PJ

[DiogenesLamp]

All of which were subject to review by the Supreme Court. Except for your last claim which is just myth.

No, it isn't a myth. It's proven by two independent references, and one of them is Lincoln's own man. You just want it to be a myth because you absolutely cannot defend against it. It demonstrates conclusively to most people that this man was no longer operating according to Law, he had become an actual dictator.

And yes, after issuing an arrest warrant for a Supreme Court Judge, all the other judges were going to do whatever they felt Lincoln wanted done. This is how dictator courts work.

Never mind what all the biographers say, your imagination trumps everyone.

The vast majority of Lincoln's "biographers" are fans. Of course they aren't going to mention the fact that he tried to have a Supreme Court Judge arrested!

I'll bet most of them don't mention how he had Congressman Clement Vallandigham arrested and then after a military show trial, had him sent across to the Confederates.

Where is the Constitutional power to do such a thing?

[DoodleDawg]

The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is in Article I Section 9 of the Constitution, which is generally the limits on Congressional power.

But Article I, Section 10 deals with limitations on the states so the argument is that Article I does not apply solely to Congress.

Where does it say that any branch must "approve" a suspension of habeas corpus? It simply says that Congress may not suspend habeas corpus except during rebellion or invasion.

It doesn't say Congress. It only says "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Since it is silent on who may suspend it then there is a bit of ambiguity that Lincoln took advantage of.

[MattMusson]

Lincoln did. But Adams did not even while the British were invading and burning Washington.

[DoodleDawg]

As I have explained to you many times, the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE grants states the right to abolish their government when they perceive it as destructive to their interests.

You have said that over and over and over again, yes. I just think you're wrong.

Additionally, there was no consequential usage of arms until @$$hole plurality winner Lincoln sent warships to attack them.

Would you refer to Trump as an "@$$hole plurality winner"? Just curious. Because he, like Lincoln, took less than 50% of the popular vote but won a large majority in the Electoral College, which is all that mattered.

Yes, if you send gunboats to shoot at people, they will respond with arms. Absolutely!

So then if the bank robbers don't start shooting until the police show up then it's obviously the gunfire is the fault of the police?

[BroJoeK]

Texasgur124: "Lincoln suspended Habeas during the Civil War, and his actions were deemed to be unconstitutional in Ex parte Milligan, 71 US 2 (1866).
The Court held what Lincoln did was unconstitutional, but the Court did also mention cases where martial law might need to be imposed:

What a crock!
My goodness, did you learn your history from a garbage dump?!

The fact is Ex parte Milligan had nothing, zero, to do with Lincoln's denial of habeas corpus before Congress officially authorized it -- nothing.
Rather, it was about military tribunals and it held, quite reasonably, they could not be used when civilian courts were available.

You owe Freepers an apology for "posting while ignorant".

[rockrr]

Yes, I recognize that you want to turn as many as possible into subversive anti-Americans - such as yourself. There will be a few of us opposing that.

[ConsCA]

Yes, the President can. And the way things are going, I hope he does.

And at the same time outlaw the Democratic party and start to throw them in jail.

[DiogenesLamp]

You have said that over and over and over again, yes. I just think you're wrong.

I don't see any evidence that you have thought of it at all. You just want it to be wrong, and so you simply declare it wrong.

The Declaration of Independence is quite clear in it's meaning. It doesn't require a lot of interpretation to understand what it says. You just don't want it to mean what it means because it undermines what you wish to believe about Lincoln and the Civil War.

Because he, like Lincoln, took less than 50% of the popular vote but won a large majority in the Electoral College, which is all that mattered.

I do not believe that at all. There is so much corruption in Democrat held states that I don't believe any of their vote count totals. Once all the illegals are weeded out, and once all the fraud is eliminated, I think Trump won the popular vote quite handily.

So then if the bank robbers don't start shooting until the police show up then it's obviously the gunfire is the fault of the police?

When squatters show up with guns to threaten the landowner on his property, then yes, he has every right to shoot them and the other squatters that are already there.

When the State voted to separate from the Union, Washington DC no longer had any rightful authority to interfere in their business.

[DiogenesLamp]

What a crock! My goodness, did you learn your history from a garbage dump?!

No, but with you getting into the thread, he's about to!

:)

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, I recognize that you want to turn as many as possible into subversive anti-Americans - such as yourself. There will be a few of us opposing that.

And for some reason you think that people being informed that Lincoln tried to have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested might make people think Lincoln was a bit out of control?

[Sgt_Schultze]

Nothing in the Constitution or any of its amendments addresses its suspension, so I’m going with, NO.

[DoodleDawg]

don't see any evidence that you have thought of it at all. You just want it to be wrong, and so you simply declare it wrong.

I suppose I could follow your line and declare something to be right because I say it is. But I'm not sure what difference that would make.

I do not believe that at all.

Surprise, surprise.

There is so much corruption in Democrat held states that I don't believe any of their vote count totals. Once all the illegals are weeded out, and once all the fraud is eliminated, I think Trump won the popular vote quite handily.

Of course you do.

When squatters show up with guns to threaten the landowner on his property, then yes, he has every right to shoot them and the other squatters that are already there.

Except, of course, that the legal owners of the property were the ones occupying it and trying to resupply it and the "squatters" were those illegally trying to take it.

[BroJoeK]

"I believe Abe suspended parts of it during Civil War I.*

Lincoln suspended nothing not authorized by the Constitution-- i.e. habeas corpus.