Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lee Heggy
Lincoln's seizure of powers not delegated to him by the Constitution, in the name of "saving" the Constitution destroyed constitutional government in America...

What seizures were those?

49 posted on 10/13/2003 10:04:20 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
What seizures were those?

You can find the answers to that at this Anti-Lincoln Web Site. The same place he's getting them from.

51 posted on 10/13/2003 10:10:08 AM PDT by PaulJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur
Dear Non Sequitur, I will give you one example from many. On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally authorized martial law. The authroizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus through out the entire United States. Lincoln imposed the suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. The President's proclamation was challenged in ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional.

In arguments before the Court, the counsel for the United States spoke to the question of "what is martial law?" "Martial law," it was argued, "is the will of the commanding officer of an armed force, or of a geographical military department, expressed in time of war within the limits of his military jurisdiction, as necessity demands and prudence dictates, restrained or enlarged by the orders of his military chief, or supreme executive ruler." In other words, martial law is imposed by a local commander on the region he controls, on an as-needed basis. Further, it was argued, "The officer executing martial law is at the same time supreme legislator, supreme judge, and supreme executive. As necessity makes his will the law, he only can define and declare it; and whether or not it is infringed, and of the extent of the infraction, he alone can judge; and his sole order punishes or acquits the alleged offender."

In this case, Lambden Milligan, for whom the case is named, was arrested in Indiana as a Confederate sympathizer. Indiana, like the rest of the United States, was part of a military district set up to help conduct the war. Milligan was tried by military commission and sentenced to die by hanging. After his conviction, Milligan petitioned the Circuit Court for habeas corpus, arguing that his arrest, trial, and conviction were all unconstitutional. What the Supreme Court had to decide, it said, was "Had [the military commission] the legal power and authority to try and punish [Milligan]?"

Resoundingly, the Court said no. The Court stated what is almost painfully obvious: "Martial law ... destroys every guarantee of the Constitution." The Court reminded the reader that such actions were taken by the King of Great Britain, which caused, in part, the Revolution. "Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish."
57 posted on 10/13/2003 10:21:55 AM PDT by Lee Heggy ("the basic delusion that men may be governed and yet be free."H L Menken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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