Posted on 04/12/2007 9:34:54 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
Follow the Link.
Wonderful Song! :)
Nonsense. He suspended Habeus Corpus in the areas under insurrection, which is constitutionally provided for "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
I would say that Mr. Dieteman is an idiot who knows very little about what he is talking about. If he is opposed to slavery then how can he support the confederate constitution, which specifically protected slavery and slave imports? If he places a premium on human freedom then how can he support a confederacy and confederate government specifically established to ensure that one third of their human population remained without freedom of any kind? Finally, how can he criticize Lincoln for being racist while ignoring similar, or even worse, racial viewpoints among Southern leaders. Or criticize Lincoln for allegedly ignoring the Constitution while completely overlooking actual infractions on the part of the Davis administration?
In short, Dieteman is a classic Southron hypocrite. Nothing more, and nothing less.
It didn’t “obviously” fall to the President, as the President has no constitutional authority to suspend habeas corpus—that is textually committed to Congress. It boggles the mind to say that a power textually committed to one branch of government “obviously” falls to another if one branch of government chooses not to exercise that power. That’s like saying that the President can make laws when Congress is not in session. It’s just wrong.
Indeed, as I noted above, none other than the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court held that Lincoln’s actions were unconstitutional—a ruling that Lincoln ignored, incidentally.
I think a more appropriate way of putting it would read:
In memory of those Gallant Union Soldiers who gave their lives for the cause of preserving the Union.
Again, this power falls to Congress, not the President. Congress can suspend the writ of habeas corpus, not the President.
your side has half the power the last time I checked.
He was a Southerner and a slaveowner who sympathised with the Southern Cause, but not to the point of leaving the Union.
Many regiments of Kentucky Soldiers seceded even if their state didn’t.
True...:)
We venerate ALL AMERICAN TROOPS. (Confederate Troops were Americans as well)
Negative. The end does NOT justify the means.
Try again.
Congress disagreed with your assessment about President Lincoln’s power to duspend habeas corpus, and so do I.
Oh really? Take a look at Section 10, chock full of actions forbidden to the states. Take a look at Section 8, which starts out specifically stating "Congress shall have the power to..." Section 9 does not start out with that statement. Some clauses refer to Congress, others do not. So making a blanket statement that Article I deals with Congress is incorrect.
The Constitution only says when habeas corpus may be suspended. It does not specifically state who may suspend it - Congress or the President. A case can be made for both, and absent any ruling on the matter by the Supreme Court then the final question of the legality of Lincoln's actions remains unanswered.
The scandal is not that habeas corpus was suspended--clearly, Congress has the right to do so--the scandal is that Lincoln, without the approval of Congress, suspended habeas corpus and then ignored a ruling from the Chief Justice that his actions were unconstitutional.
The Chief Justice alone does not have the authority to rule what is Constitutional and what is not. Only the entire court can do that, and so far they haven't done so.
Is that Wlat in a new doo?
Who knows..?...:)
Well he was a Democrat so he got 100% of the electoral vote from the former Confederate states. In fact, "Big Government" FDR won all of the South every time he ran for president. 100% of their electoral votes in four elections!
I don't know where the myth comes from that somehow the North was solely responsible for creating big daddy government. There were never bigger pork barrel hogs than the so-called "conservative" Democrats of the pre 1970s south. (Called that by the left-wing media trying to demonize real constrvatives in the rest of the country).
Those guys loved Federal money and would take as much of it as they could get and the only state-right they gave a damn about was the un constitutional "right" to segregate and disenfranchise blacks. They were not fiscal or constitutional conservatives in any sense of the word. They would vote for any Federal power grab if there was money in it for them and their states.
Says the Chief Justice in response to Lincoln's total usurpation of power in Ex Parte Merryman:
"With such provisions in the Constitution, expressed in language too clear to be misunderstood by any one, I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President, in any emergency or in any state of things, can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen, except in aid of the judicial power. He certainly does not faithfully execute the laws if he takes upon himself legislative power by suspending the writ of habeas corpus — and the judicial power, also, by arresting and imprisoning a person without due process of law. Nor can any argument be drawn from the nature of sovereignty, or the necessities of government for self—defense, in times of tumult and danger. The Government of the United States is one of delegated and limited powers. It derives it existence and authority altogether from the Constitution, and neither of its branches — executive, legislative or judicial — can exercise any of the powers of government beyond those specified and granted."
It doesn't really matter what Congress thinks, because Congress is not the judiciary. You seem to have trouble with separation of powers.
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.