Why> Isn't it the constant claim of the southron choir that secession wasn't illegal because the Constitution didn't prevent it? Well what about this? If you read the Constitution it says that the writ of habeas corpus will not be suspended unless invasion or rebellion requires it. It does not say who may or may not suspend it, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on who may not suspend it. Lincoln's actions have never been shown to be unconstitutional.
Let Me Say It S-L-O-W-L-Y...
The Constitution puts limits on the federal government, to provide protection for the people and the states.
If you read the Constitution it says that the writ of habeas corpus will not be suspended unless invasion or rebellion requires it. It does not say who may or may not suspend it...
I'm not a Constitutional Law professor. I am not a lawyer. I am a citizen. And any citizen should have at least this basic understanding...so I am wondering if you're trolling here or intentionally blowing smoke. But since I don't have enough time to call all the bluffs you've made, let me illustrate this one...
Note the way each of the first three articles of the Constitution start:
Where does the line about habeus corpus fall? Gee...it's Article I...where things pertaining to the Legislative Branch are listed.
...and the Supreme Court has never ruled on who may not suspend it.
Obviously, because it's quite clearly listed with the Congressional powers (Article I), there's no need to "rule" on it. If you misled intentionally, that's a rather sneaky debate technique, throwing in a dash of argumentum ad ignorantiam, too. p> Lincoln's actions have never been shown to be unconstitutional.
See above, both in this message, and in others.