Nullification and Liberty

Lew Rockwell ^ | 12/10/02 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

[GOPcapitalist]

The Writ has nothing to legislative power. It's a privilege.

The constitution and centuries of common law say otherwise. See article I, Sections 1 and 9.

I am still waiting for you to tell where the Constitution -specifically- prohibits the president from suspending the Writ.

Article I, Section 1, which specifically vests the power to the legislature and no other branch.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Article I, Section 1, which specifically vests the power to the legislature and no other branch.

I don't see any language there equivalent to: "The President may not ever suspend the Writ of Hebeas Corpus."

Where do you see that?

If you are going to play this game, I can count on you to never say that secession is legal either --based on Article one, Section one. Right?

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

I don't see any language there equivalent to: "The President may not ever suspend the Writ of Hebeas Corpus."

And I don't see any language there equivalent to: "The Executive Power herein granted, in which the the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus may be suspended in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it, shall be vested in the President of the United States."

Such is said of the legislature though, making it unreasonable and irrational to conclude that the power to suspend habeas corpus exists with anyone other than the legislature.

If you are going to play this game, I can count on you to never say that secession is legal either

Only insofar as I can count on you to hold that suspending habeas corpus is a legislative power and in doing so concede that The Lincoln was in error. Fat chance of that last part ever happening with you though, so I guess that settles it.

[WhiskeyPapa]

And I don't see any language there equivalent to: "The Executive Power herein granted, in which the the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus may be suspended in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it, shall be vested in the President of the United States."

That's right. There is no language in the Constitution to prevent the president from suspending the --privilge-- of Habeas Corpus.

Your present day attack on something accepted 140 years ago will only continue to fall flat.

Walt

[Constantine XIII]

How is federalism dangerous? :O)

Just curious, he he

[GOPcapitalist]

That's right. There is no language in the Constitution to prevent the president from suspending the --privilge-- of Habeas Corpus.

Sure there is. Article I, Section 1 vests that power in the legislature. It does not vest that power in the president. It is therefore absurd to conclude that the president has that power and on this point, every court that's ruled on the matter has agreed with me. Try again if you must, Walt. You're grasping at straws and it is obvious.

[H.Akston]

The Constitution is a grant of powers, not a restriction of existing powers. If it doesn't grant the power to the President, he doesn't have it. You can't show where it grants the power to the president. I and GOP Capitalist can show where it grants the power to suspend WHC to Congress, in certain times.

Your concept of "reality" is upside down - you think this is a country in which the Federal Government created the States, and in which the Constitution limits the pre-existing powers of the Federal Government, rather than enumerating and ceding a limited amount of powers from the States and the People.

You are thoroughly, and shamefully, reconstructed.

[H.Akston]

There is a reason not a word was spoken on this subject at the Constitutional Convention and that is because it was unthinkable to those true patriots many of whom had risked all on the battlefield fighting for Independence.

You might want to enlighten yourself on the Declaration of Independence. It says that the states are "FREE AND INDEPENDENT", and as such have the right to levy war make peace, contract alliances, and do all things that INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. The Constitution is an alliance. Federalist 39 says that the only bind to the Constitution is by the states' own VOLUNTARY acts. The Constitution does not bind the State into the Union, the State's choice of being a member of the Union is the ONLY THING that binds it, according to JAMES MADISON. What you are saying goes against the very spirit, grain and fabric of what America is founded on - independence and free will.

Just Shut Up and Take it. The South was Right.

[WhiskeyPapa]

I and GOP Capitalist can show where it grants the power to suspend WHC to Congress, in certain times.

Apparently only three months out of the year in 1861 -- that's how long Congress met for. Too bad if a revolution or rebellion crop up during the other nine months, I guess.

There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent the president from suspending the Writ.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

The Constitution is a grant of powers, not a restriction of existing powers.

Not according to James Madison.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

The Constitution does not bind the State into the Union, the State's choice of being a member of the Union is the ONLY THING that binds it, according to JAMES MADISON.

Under natural law, not United States law. United States law makes the federal government supreme over the states, as Madison clearly stated on numerous occasions.

George Washington wanted a "coercive power" and that power is in the Constitution.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

If it doesn't grant the power to the President, he doesn't have it.

The laws passed pursuant to the Constitution are also the supreme law of the land and that includes the Militia Act of 1792 as amended in 1795.

You might want to read it.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

You might want to enlighten yourself on the Declaration of Independence. It says that the states are "FREE AND INDEPENDENT", and as such have the right to levy war make peace, contract alliances, and do all things that INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. The Constitution is an alliance.

The D of I has no standing as U.S. law. It's not a law, it's an excuse for going outside the law -- British law.

The Consitution is -not- an alliance. I challenge you to find one delegate to the Constitutional Convention that called it that. The convention specifically arranged to have the Constitution ratified in conventions drawn for that purpose -- NOT by the state legislatures. The purpose of the CC was to strengthen the Articles because the government was going to pieces. In the event, the Articles were tossed and a much stronger federal government substituted. I am sorry you don't like it, but there it is.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Just Shut Up and Take it. The South was Right.

The south wound up taking it.

Walt

[justshutupandtakeit]

You've tried those lies before and there is not a shred of truth in any of them.

The Declaration has little to do with the constitution and the author of the former would have undoubtably opposed the latter had he been in this country. His later actions and remarks indicate both a lack of understanding of the constitution and a contempt for it. Like you and the other D.S.'s.

The Confederacy was wrong in every catagory which can be measured.

State's were never Free and Independent. Their very existence depended upon the Union.

The Constitution is not an alliance it is an act by the People of the United States. Stop lying. The States were not allowed to make the decision whether or not to ratify it. This was done by the American People in convention in the States. Stop Lying.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The constitution is an act binding the individual American to the Union. It is not an act of the States of the Union but the People. There is no point of negoitiation between the States and the Union that would allow changes in the Union other than by amendment. States were deliberately excluded from the decision about the constitution because it was to be a higher act than passage of a law or resolution by the State legislature which could be easily rescinded.

There is no doubt that property of the Federal government can be disposed of in any way it decides in States or territories but States are not property of the federal government and thus cannot be cast out of the Union, allowed to leave the Union or sold by the rest of the Union without a constitutional amendment changing the form and contents of the nation.

While the federal government does have the power to delegate its responsibilities and duties to the States it does not have the power to suspend the Constitution in those States unless in war or insurrection. That is the essence of secession- the Constitution of the United States no longer applies in a seceded State. That is tantamount to saying the people of that state no longer has the protections of the U.S. constitution. The constitution cannot be suspended in such a fashion only by amendment. Changes to the Union must occur through the constitutional means and that is amendment. It is the highest law incapable of change by the normal fashion of passing a law to change another ordinary law.

I realize this may not be clear but it is something I have never tried to articulate. Perhaps your comments or questions will allow me to make it clearer.

[justshutupandtakeit]

If I see a stupid or untrue remark from anyone I will respond should I feel like it that not only includes you but almost guarantees response since those are the only type of remarks you make.

It is you who drag these exchanges into a quagmire of libel and stupidity. Should you decide to continue to make slanderous remarks about me I will continue to ridicule you as well as your "ideas."

Do throw rocks if you live in a glass house.

[Protagoras]

You flunked. You are totally insane. Go take your Prozak.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Just can't tear yourself away I see.

[Protagoras]

I offered, you feel a need to continue. It is a sure sign of insanity. I guess no one else will talk to you.

I'm starting to feel pity for you.