Proclamation issued by Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, during the American Civil War, declaring all “slaves within any State, or designated part of a State ... then ... in rebellion, ... shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.” The states affected were enumerated in the proclamation; specifically exempted were slaves in parts of the South then held by Union armies. Lincoln's issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation marked a radical change in his policy; historians regard it as one of the great state documents of the United States.
After the outbreak of the Civil War, the slavery issue was made acute by the flight to Union lines of large numbers of slaves who volunteered to fight for their freedom and that of their fellow slaves. In these circumstances, a strict application of established policy would have required return of fugitive slaves to their Confederate masters and would have alienated the staunchest supporters of the Union cause in the North and abroad.
Abolitionists had long been urging Lincoln to free all slaves, and public opinion seemed to support this view. Lincoln moved slowly and cautiously nonetheless; on March 13, 1862, the federal government forbade all Union army officers to return fugitive slaves, thus annulling in effect the fugitive slave laws. On April 10, on Lincoln's initiative, Congress declared the federal government would compensate slave owners who freed their slaves. All slaves in the District of Columbia were freed in this way on April 16, 1862. On June 19, 1862, Congress enacted a measure prohibiting slavery in United States territories, thus defying the Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case, which ruled that Congress was powerless to regulate slavery in the territories.
Finally, after the Union victory in the Battle of Antietam (September 17, 1862), Lincoln issued a preliminary proclamation on September 22, declaring his intention of promulgating another proclamation in 100 days, freeing the slaves in the states deemed in rebellion at that time. On January 1, 1863, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, conferring liberty on about 3,120,000 slaves. With the enactment of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in effect in 1865, slavery was completely abolished.
(You will note, I'm sure, that President Lincoln, and the Congress, took all of these actions in defiance of the Supreme Court, and before the passage of the 13th Amendment. Together, they checked the judiciary.)
The Scott decision was rendered in 1857, before Lincoln was even President. In a speech Lincoln gave in 1857, he expressed his disagreement with Scott, but also recognized that the Supreme Court possessed the authority to interpret the Constitution. Thus, he stated:
“And now as to the Dred Scott decision. That decision declares two propositions—first, that a Negro cannot sue in the U.S. Courts; and secondly, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the Territories. It was made by a divided court—dividing differently on the different points. Judge Douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision; and, in that respect, I shall follow his example, believing I could no more improve on McLean and Curtis, than he could on Taney.
He denounces all who question the correctness of that decision, as offering violent resistance to it. But who resists it? Who has, in spite of the decision, declared Dred Scott free, and resisted the authority of his master over him?
Judicial decisions have two uses—first, to absolutely determine the case decided, and secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the latter use, they are called “precedents” and “authorities.”
We believe, as much as Judge Douglas, (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of government. We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has often over-ruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to over-rule this. We offer no resistance to it.”
During the Civil War, Lincoln, relying upon the war powers of the Constitution (Article II, Sec. 2) granted to him as Commander in Chief issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves held in Confederate states. It did not free slaves living in the border states nor did it overrule Dred Scott. It was a Constitutional exercise of his war powers.
Congress passed a law prohibiting slavery in the territories. Was its constitutionality ever challenged? No. Unconstitutional laws are occasionally passed by Congress and signed by the President, but the unconstitutionality of such laws are not determined until they are challenged and ultimately decided by the Supreme Court. McCain-Feingold was passed by Congress and signed by the President. Its constitutionality was challenged and portions of it were held by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. Why? Because that is the authority granted by the Constitution to the Supreme Court. Was the law passed by Congress in 1862 unconstitutional? Yes. Was it ever challenged? Not to my knowledge. Why? Because there was a Civil War going on. Do you think the Confederacy which had already seceded from the Union and established its own government was going to challenge it?
The asininity of your position is belied by the subsequent passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. If the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1862 law passed by Congress were sufficient to overrule Supreme Court precedent it would have been unnecessary to pass such Amendments. However, the Amendments were necessary and it is a further example of how checks and balances exist in the Constitution.
Your feeble efforts to support your bizarre position are embarrassing yourself. Please stop trying to espouse an argument which has no authority in either the text of the Constitution or Constitutional jurisprudence.