Rosenkranz: Obama Suspends the Law. What Would Lincoln Say?

Wall Street Journal ^ | Aug 16, 2013 | NICHOLAS QUINN ROSENKRANZ

[Innovative]

The Obama administration announced last month via blog post that the president was unilaterally suspending ObamaCare's employer mandate—notwithstanding the clear command of the law. President Obama's comments about it on Aug. 9—claiming that "the normal thing [he] would prefer to do" is seek a "change to the law"—then added insult to constitutional injury. It also offers a sharp contrast with a different president who also suspended the law.

As for Republican congressmen who had the temerity to question his authority, Mr. Obama said only: "I'm not concerned about their opinions—very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers." Mr. Obama made no mention of Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin—a Democrat, a lawyer and one of the authors of ObamaCare—who said: "This was the law. How can they change the law?"

[Owl558]

“But I feel that most Northern soldiers were simply repeating a political platitude.

You may be right. It’s a complex question with a million motivations and we’re trying to distil it down to 1. In the end, I believe that most Union soldiers were conscripts, so it may be safe to say that most went because they were forced.

“Perhaps they were motivated by some sense of an “American Empire”...”

Great observation. Remember our Manifest Destiny and the beautiful Columbia.

“Bottom line for me - slavery was the central issue of the War.”

It always comes down to that. And people knew it at the time. Even before the Emancipation Proclamation. I think people today forget or ignore the 100+ years of abolition. It was a powerful political movement. President Lincoln didn’t just make it up.

[Owl558]

“There is no “Noble Cause” clause in the Constitution...”

The Constitution provides for the suspension of Habeas Corpus in Article I, section 9. Congress, not the president certainly has this right and Congress subsequently, legally suspended it once the constitutionality question was raised.

[trebb]

I said: “There is no “Noble Cause” clause in the Constitution...”

You said: The Constitution provides for the suspension of Habeas Corpus in Article I, section 9. Congress, not the president certainly has this right and Congress subsequently, legally suspended it once the constitutionality question was raised.

Article 1, Section 9 says: The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Since the area is about limitations on Congress, I would guess that unless we are in open rebellion (which the Forefathers would be actively encouraging/leading right now, or if we are being invaded (I guess they could suddenly decide all the illegal "immigrants" are an invasion if they wanted to really twist the knife on us...), it cannot be suspended by the Congress, or by a unilateral executive order from a president that decided he don't likes da way tings is goin'.

[Owl558]

Congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus in cases of rebellion, invasion, or when public safety requires it. Of the 3, “public safety” is the broadest, and most open to being corrupted by our politicians.

[trebb]

Congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus in cases of rebellion, invasion, or when public safety requires it. Of the 3, “public safety” is the broadest, and most open to being corrupted by our politicians."The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

It really seems to limit it to cases of rebellion or invasion. What concerns me is that they will tout it as a reason to put down people by the millions if the People ever decide they have had enough...