Posted on 12/24/2001 4:25:26 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
Walt you make this so tedious with your misleading selective memory about what the Constitution says. The Constitution says:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."
So while in the Union, they're guaranteed a republican form of government. There's no implication whatsoever in that text, that the States have to stay in the Union. In fact, the words "in this Union" imply that there may be other states, like Rhode Island did for 2 years, who may wish to remain out of the Union. Again, the Union that Washington wanted was voluntary. The union that Lincoln wanted was involuntary.
In fact, Licoln violated that very clause in Article IV when he clapped Maryland's legislature in irons. I wouldn't call that guaranteeing them a republican form of Government, but you might. Had he declared war on Maryland too? Perhaps you think a Republican form of Government can exist, minus the privilege of writ of Habeas Corpus?
This is just another example, like your statement about how Article VI makes the federal govt. "supreme", of how you mentally tailor the Constitution to suit your reconstructed view of history.
So while in the Union, they're guaranteed a republican form of government.
That is not what is says.
Walt
That's why each state still has a Legislature of representatives, et.al. who are elected by the people - at least since Reconstruction was over and after all the State Constitutions had been modified in accordance with the Consent of the Yankees...
Only a strict reconstructionist could deny that.
Only a strict reconstructionist could deny that.
Unfortunately for your 'argument', the Constitution doesn't say that. The guarantee is unrestricted.
You can't make it say anything else.
Walt
The guarantee is restricted to only States "in this Union". It is not an "unrestricted" guarantee at all. Those three words are a qualification of the Guarantee. You can't hallucinate your way out of that. A State can be in or out of the Union. States "in this Union" have the guarantee. States out of the Union don't have the guarantee. You can't make it say any thing about binding the States to the Union. There is nothing binding in that text. It offers an enticement to the States, nothing more. The States have the option of securing an agent, the US, to insure that they retain a Republican form of government, if they choose to be "in this Union". If a State wants some other form of government, it shouldn't ratify or remain in the Union.
When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in 1861 it was limited to the Maryland area. He was faced with a rebellion, the safety of transportation of troops and supplies through Baltimore was in jeopardy, and Washington, D.C. was in danger of being cut off. He acted as he saw fit and, as Chief Justice William Rehnquist has reminded us, the Constitutionality or unconstitutionality of his actions have never been decided.
Fast forward a year to the south when Jefferson Davis forced a suspension of habeas corpus through the confederate congress. What was Davis afraid of? Why did he need to take this most basic right away from the southern people? His legislation was used to by local military commanders to declare martial law in southern cities miles away from the fighting. What about these abuses? If you believe that Lincoln was wrong then surely you agree that Davis was just as wrong as well, don't you?
That was his tough luck. The Constitution did not allow him to do what he did. Maryland was not rebelling.
As for Davis, I honestly don't know the circumstances surrounding his suspension of the writ. Might he have had to act because of Lincoln's initial unconstitutional aggression? War really wasn't under way (esp. w/Maryland) when Lincoln did what he did. The US is supposed to protect the states, not invade them or take them over. This is quite obvious to you I'm sure. I'm puzzled as to why you can't be objective enough to find fault with Lincoln. He also advocated secession - of West Virginia fm VA - in clear violation of Article IV section 3.
The clause doesn't say "unless they leave", and you can't make it say that.
Your 'argument' is nonsense.
Walt
Their argument can only flourish in ignorance.
They forget the Virginians too.
"The convention was slow to tackle the problem of an army, defense, and internal police. The Virginia Plan said nothing about a standing army, but it did say that the national government could 'call forth the force of the union against any member of the Union failing to fulfill its duty under the articles thereof.' The delegates had expected to discuss something like this clause, for one of the great problems had been the inability of the old Congress to enforce its laws. Surely it should be able to march troops into states when necessary to get state governments to obey.
But in the days before the convention opened Madison had been thinking it over, and he had concluded that the idea was a mistake. You might well march your troops into Georgia or Connecticut, but then what? Could you really force a legislature to disgorge money at bayonet point? 'The use of force against a state,' Madison said, as the debate started on May 31, 'would be more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.' Although he did not say so at the moment, he had another way of enforcing national law, which not only would be more effective, but also philosophically sounder. As the government was to derive its power from the people, it ought to act on the people directly. Instead of trying to punish a state, which was, after all, an abstraction, for failure to obey the law, the U.S. government could punish individuals directly. Some person -- a governor, a tax collector, a state treasurer -- would be held responsible for failure to deliver the taxes. Similarly, the national government would not punish a state government for allowing say, illegal deals with Indians over western lands, but would directly punish the people making the deals.
All of this seemed eminently sensible to the convention and early in the debate on the Virginia Plan the power of the national government to 'call forth the power of the Union' was dropped. And so was the idea that the government should be able to compell the states disappeared from the convention. It is rather surprising, in view of the fact that the convention had been called mainly to curb the independence of the states, that the concept went out so easily. The explanation is, in part, that the states' righters were glad to see it go; and in part that Madison's logic was persuasive: it is hard to arrest an abstraction."
--"Decision in Philadelphia" by Collier and Collier
The Civil War era Virginians betrayed the memory of the framer Virginians.
They probably didn't know the history any better than these modern poltroons.
Walt
You can sing this song until you are blue in the face. There is nothing in the Constitution or in case law to keep the president from suspending the Writ.
Jiminy Cricket, Andrew Jackson suspended the Writ in and around New Orleans in 1814, and he wasn't even president!
I am sorry these -facts- are so inconvenient.
Your position is fantasy.
Walt
The point is not whether it says "unless they leave", the point is that it does NOT bind the states into the Union, as you originally suggested.
You'll have to dream up another fiction to bind the States to the Union involuntarily.
The guarantee is restricted to only States "in this Union". It is not an "unrestricted" guarantee at all, as you said. Those three words are a qualification of the Guarantee. You can't hallucinate your way out of that. Those three words acknowledge that a State can be in or out of the Union.
You can't make it say any thing about binding the States to the Union. There is nothing binding in that text. It pledges a service to the States that choose to take advantage of it.
I am sorry these -facts- are so inconvenient.
Your position is fantasy.
Inconvenient? How so? The fact is that some presidents violate the Constitution. Lincoln did when he suspended the writ with peaceful Maryland, which, just like SC, he saw as a threat. He probably was getting pretty paranoid to have the principles all around him abandoning their agent. I'm sorry if your favorite president falls in the same category with Bill Clinton, but facts are facts. Some presidents violate the Constitution. This particular violation is just one little part of the tapestry of Lincoln's slick presidency.
"The Federal Government is supreme." - Walt
!
As for Davis, he suspended habeas corpus in February 1862, a year after the start of the war. So why the need a year later? Some commanders, such as Braxton Bragg, used it as an excuse to declare martial law and install their own administrators in Georgia and other parts of the south hundreds of mile away from the fighting. Wouldn't that mean that Davis was guilty of the same oppression that you accuse Lincoln of?
I don't see how you can accuse Lincoln of conspiracy in West Virginia since, as president, he played no part in the matter. To be sure he supported the actions of the dissatisfied members of the Virginia legislature but the actions of setting up an alternative to the other Virginia legislature were their own. It was the Senate which recognized them as the lawful legislative body and it was Congress which approved the admission as a state. You make it sound like Lincoln did it all on his own. Besides, since there was nothing in the Virginia constitution which specifically prohibited their actions I would think that you would understand and support them.
That's an interesting assertion, cause I've encountered no shortage of information available on either Pickney. That is to say, in contrast with such "forgettable" measures as the Corwin Amendment in the north, or Winfield Scott's letter about the "supply" ships Lincoln sent to reprovision Sumter.
In fact, if I recall correctly, we were earlier involved in a conversation about the Corwin Amendment in which you crudely state what ammounted to little more than an unsubstantiated assertion that nobody here but you knew anything about the real truth behind it, and that all of the southerners were ignorant of anything beyond its text alone.
I recall countering you by inquiring as to what specifically you are talking about and where you have found your sources giving you a substantial background in the Corwin amendment. I consider the latter question especially telling, seeing as I know of nothing substantial being written about the Corwin amendment in decades beyond a paragraph or a footnote, and in fact it is simple reality that one must go back to books that have been out of print since the 1930's to find a truly detailed account...either that, or digging up the congressional globe records. So tell me, what is it that you know of this often overlooked little historical triviality? Also feel free to comment on Scott's letter if you wish. I am still patiently awaiting....
Walt, according to the Article I, Section 9 of our federal Constitution, listed among the enumerated Congressional powers is the power for Congress to suspend the Writ of habeas corpus.
Wait - before you say it, you'll say that the President had the authority under the Militia or Judiciary Act? No case law? Try this:
"If at any time, the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide; until the legislative will be expressed, this court can only see its duty, and must obey the laws."Congress could not delegate the courts (nor the President) a power that was delegated to them. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney cited that decision in his case on habeas corpus,
Chief Justice Marshall, Ex parte Bollman & Swartwout, 4 Cranch 75, (1807)
These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.He deemed Lincoln's action unconstitutional, which Lincoln ignored, and Congress attempted again to delegate the power again on 3 Mar 1863 (also a violation of the prohibition against ex post facto laws), only to have the following issued after Lincoln's death:
Chief Justice Taney, ex parte Merryman, (1961)
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.See also Ex parte Field, and McCall v. McDowell
Justice David Davis, Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wallace 2, (1866)
Nothing in the Constitution or in case law to keep the President from suspending the Writ? Stick to facts, not allegations.
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.