If that is true then the Executive could claim ANY power. A despot for ruler? See Madison's opinion in Federalist 47 and others.
Note as I stated earlier that in Ex parte Bollman and Swartwout the Supreme Court held that the federal courts had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus even in the absence of statutory authorization from Congress. Where is that power enumerated in the Constitution?
Article III. It doesn't say that they can have a bathroom in their chambers either. No specific powers are delegated (contrasted with Articles I & II). In Article I there is no specifications on the mundane operations of Congress, the same for Article II. The legislature is delegated the power to suspend the writ, and historically, who commands that a person be brought into court at a given time and place? Lincoln?
Aside from the logistical difficulties of getting Congressmen from Oregon and California to D.C ... I'm not sure when Lincoln called for the special session, but it appears he wanted to give every Congressman plenty of time to get their personal affairs in order and travel to Washington ....
On 15 Apr 1861 Lincoln issued the order to convene a special session on 4 July 1861. How thoughtful of the President - basically declaring war by himself, appropriating millions for ships, suspending the writ of habeas corpus (and maintaining it after Taney ruled otherwise), to allow the congressmen to get their personal affairs in order. What emergency? A quorum could have quickly been assembled in days for the Eastern/Northern/Midwestern states. Lincoln avoided any possible repercussions by keeping Congress from meeting.
Stack up all of the paper it has taken to interpret the U.S. Constition and then tell me if you still believe that.
The only people that think it's ambiguous are those that try to read something into it that isn't there.
Of course, that provision still requires judges to determine exactly what power has been delegated and whether the powers not delegated are reserved to the people or the states.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." See prior comment. How hard is that to understand?
As I've stated, Lincoln was acting within the scope of a plausible, good faith interpretation of his Article II powers as Commander in Chief. Would you have preferred that he acted meekly and permitted the Southern slaveocracy to survive in perpetuity?
Yes. If the states had not seceded from the Articles, if the Constitution prohibited secession, or if the ratification agreements of Virginia, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and New York had not reserved the right to resume self-govenment, or if the 10th Amendment had not been added, or if the Constitution somewhere held that it was a permanent, unbreakable relationship, I might agree. Would you want X42 or any President to have any power (judicial, legislative and executive)?
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
James Madison, Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 47, "The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts", 1 Feb 1788.
I agree with the "father" of the Constitution.
Now you've gone way off the deep end into Confederate fantasyland. The Union forces prevailed on the battlefield without slaughtering women and children. Certainly there were innocent civilians who were caught in the crossfire from time to time as in all wars, but they were not targeted by the Union forces ... In comparison to other wars before and after, however, the Civil War was a rather civilized conflict.
Pulling a Buchanan? The Holocaust didn't occur? Sherman didn't destroy entire cities? More people were killed in that war than any war prior. Civil? It was most uncivil - civilians are not prone to running onto the battlefield and being caught in crossfires. And with the men off fighting the war, destroying homes, raping women (black and white), pillaging, looting, destroying towns, kidnapping women and children (read about the Roswell women), destroying crops are all evidence that UNARMED and DEFENSELESS civilians were attacked, either injured immediately, or left to starve with the wanton destruction of entire food-crops.
Lincoln had nothing to do with reconstruction. In fact, it was the Confederates' assassination of him that triggered the harshness of reconstruction, and once again, the ambiguities of the Constitution made it easier for that harsh treament to occur.
Lincoln was the only decent person in the North?
A President could claim any power, but his assertion will only be acquiesced in by Congress, the people, and/or the judiciary if it is a plausible claim. The basic reason for having a commander in chief is to enable to government to act quickly and efficiently to in an emergency (particularly a large scale rebellion which occurs close to the capital).
The clear purpose of Art. I, Sect. 9, paragraph 2 is to prevent the government from suspending habeas corpus when there is no rebellion or invasion taking place. From Jefferson's writings it is apparent that he thought (at least initially) that habeas corpus should never be suspended, but Art. I, Sect. 9 certainly makes it clear that habeas corpus may be suspended during a rebellion when the public safety so requires, even though it doesn't make clear who has the power to suspend it. The commander in chief is obviously in charge of responding quickly and efficiently to rebellions and invasions which threaten the public safety. Thus if the President determines that the public safety requires the suspension of habeas corpus, the implication of Articles I and II is that he has the power to do so -- particularly when Congress cannot convene in time to respond effectively to the threat. But as I've stated, if you don't like what Lincoln did, propose an amendment to the Constitution whcih forbids a President from doing what he did.
[Article III] doesn't say that they can have a bathroom in their chambers either. No specific powers are delegated (contrasted with Articles I & II). In Article I there is no specifications on the mundane operations of Congress, the same for Article II. The legislature is delegated the power to suspend the writ, and historically, who commands that a person be brought into court at a given time and place? Lincoln?
Your point is a little obscure here. Are you suggesting that suspending habeas corpus is not "mundane" enough to be included in the scope of being the commander in chief? What about holding prisoners of war without an indictment? Is that "mundane" enough for you to include it within the scope of Art. II, Section 2? Or do you think that prisoners of war are entitled to habeas corpus protection absent a Congressional suspension of the writ?
A quorum could have quickly been assembled in days for the Eastern/Northern/Midwestern states. Lincoln avoided any possible repercussions by keeping Congress from meeting.
The fact that the President (rather than say the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader) is given the power to convene a special session also implies that he is to exercise his discretion in the best interests of the United States. Mr. Quakenbush makes a good point in Post #128 above that the Congressmen should be given suggicient time to consult with their constituents before convening. You are obvious being rather blind to the logistical realities of 1861 America. And to suggest that Congress should convene without even giving Far Western Congressmen any chance to reach Washington is ridiculous.
As for "repercussions", you seem to be ignoring the fact that the Republicans controlled both houses by a substantial majority. While Republican control and Lincoln's popularity slipped somewhat as the war dragged on, in 1861 even the Democrats were "rallying around the flag".
The only people that think [the Constitution is] ambiguous are those that try to read something into it that isn't there.
You seem to be saying that if everyone were to interpret the Constitution exactly how you want them to, it would not be ambiguous. I agree.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." See prior comment. How hard is that to understand?
Please list all of the powers not delegated to the U.S. or prohibited by it to the States, and then tell me which of those are reserved to the people and which are reserved to the States. Then tell me whether "the people" refers to individuals or the people that have been elected by majorities/pluralities. That should be a simple task for soemone like you who does not believe in the existence of Constitutional ambiuguities.
I'll address your other points when I have time later.
Yes.
You prefer no change to change for the better. That's why you're a conservative and I'm a libertarian.
Would you want X42 or any President to have any power (judicial, legislative and executive)?
No. I certainly wouldn't want any President to have the power that Jefferson Davis had. Nor would I want a constitution like the Confederates' that prohibited the abolition of slavery. Talk about the despotic power! That's the problem with you Confederate glorifiers. To you, the state can do no wrong. If a majority of the citizens of your state wanted to secede so that they could form a state based on the ritual kidnapping and raping of nine year old girls, your analysis would support their "right of secession and self-government."
Sherman didn't destroy entire cities?
Name one. (If you'd like to read a fair and comprehensive analysis of the ethics of Sherman's battlefield tactics, read this.) Although Sherman's tactics were hard on civilian property, few citizens were harmed by his tactics compared to other wars. Consider, for example, the fact that hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians died in bombing raids even before nuclear weapons were employed.
The problem with rules of war which seek to protect civilians is that they only encourage dictators and their armed forces to hide behind human shields. War is hell, but for some 4 million negroes, life itself under slavery was also hell.
More people were killed in that war than any war prior.
I didn't say it wasn't a long and bloody war. Nevertheless, disease killed far more soldiers than battles.
It was most uncivil - civilians are not prone to running onto the battlefield and being caught in crossfires.
They didn't have to run anywhere. The people of Atlanta only had to stick around town long enough for the Confederates to retreat into town to try to use them as human shields.
Northerners wanted nothing to do with blacks, except to send them out of the country, keep them in the south, or prevent them from migrating north and west.
Nonsense. There were plenty of Northerners who were quite sympathetic to the plight of negroes and attempted to help them, including Mary Todd Lincoln.
In the South many whites worked side by side with the slaves. But you should read the Slave Narratives in the Federal Writers project. Real, honest-to-goodness, ex-slaves. You'll find some mistreated, and many more that state that they loved their masters, loaned them money, defended them, even wished for the good old days.
It's not too hard to find accounts of a few slaves who were relatively well treated. I read one recently about a slave whose job was being a stud. Of course, if slavery was so popular with the slaves, why were the slaveholders so adament about the enforcement of fugitive slave laws? (Check out these accounts of escaped slaves.) And why did all able bodied Southern white men have to serve in the slave patrols?
And how do you explain the negroes that jumped and sang in joy when they were freed by Union troops and were very helpful in providing information on troop strengths and movements to them? (The history of my gggrandfather's Illinois cavalry regiment contains many such accounts.) Any negroes who enjoyed life as a slave were perfectly free after the passage of the 13th Amendment to continue to live the same way, but few (if any) chose to do so.
There were never massive slave revolts before the war
It's pretty hard to revolt when you have no weapons or other resources and are threatened with brutal whippings for even talking about escaping.
...no revolts against the women and children remaing at home when the EP was issued.
The Emancipation Proclamation specifically urged slaves to abstain from violence.
Lincoln made it very clear when he was inaugurated that his first priority was holding onto the forts, post offices, and tariff houses - and collecting the MONEY. He said nothing about forcing states to rejoin the union.
You expected him to announce his strategy in public? From Battle Cry:
"Lincoln had hoped to cool passions and buy time with his inaugural address -- time to organize his administration, to prove his pacific intent, to allow the seeds of voluntary reconstruction to sprout." (See page 264.)
Of course, the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter ended any realistic thoughts of voluntary reconstruction, both because it galvanized pro-war Northern opinion and made it clear that the Confederates were bloodthirsty rebels.