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.
I would hope that a lawyer would have understood the simple concepts of "limited, enumerated powers", and "separation of powers". Taney didn't agree that Lincoln had the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. And if Lincoln disagreed with Justice Taney, then it was Lincoln's duty to appeal it to the Supreme Court - a concept that Lincoln certainly understood. Previously you had asserted that it was up to Taney to arrest him, or in some other fashion force Lincoln to obey the law. Again, a President that considers himself above the law is a dictator, not a leader. And the people did not "acquiesce" to Lincolns action, as more states seceded in response to sveral of Lincolns actions.
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.
The whole point was that Taney had ruled it was not for Lincoln to decide. And every quote I could find by the founders during debate always regards it as a legislative power - never an executive one. Why resort to a contorted reading of Article I that finds a solitary Executive right amidst Legislative powers and limitations? Obviously, if the founders wanted to delegate/limit that power to the executive then they would have enumerated it in Article II. A careful reading of Article I, sections 9 & 10 will result in the understanding that the founders had considered this, as Section 9 limits federal legislative powers, Section 10 limits state legislatures.
Article I, Section 5: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications ofTo hear some on your side, fire hadn't even been invented. The telegraph had been invented years before, and trains as well. A simple majority of congressmen could have assembled in days, enough to LEGALLY sanction Lincoln's actions if so desired.
its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business."
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.
Amendment X - why not admit to the PLAIN meaning of the amendment? And if Lincoln didn't follow that one - what then? Propose another? And another? That's exactly why secession/nullification protects states.
Are you suggesting that suspending habeas corpus is not "mundane" enough to be included in the scope of being the commander in chief?
What I meant was that the Constitution does not describe in minute detail HOW certain powers are exercised, only that the power had been delegated/prohibited.
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.
No, I maintain that a plain reading of the Constitution is all that is required. It was written for the people to understand - not only by lawyers and justices. If the power is not there, the courts are failing to uphold their duties by inventing "rights" and "powers" that were unknown to the founders with some contorted reading. They gave us the amendment process to make whatever changes were necessary. Not just to fill space on some parchment.
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.
Make a list of every "power" known to man. Strike from this list every power delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. Strike ever power prohibited by the Constitution to any federal or state government (note: powers could be prohibited at the federal level, and allowable for state governments). There's your list.
The powers that are performed by individuals are retained by individuals (the Bill of Rights list a few). What can only be performed by a government is retained to the states. Sescession would be a power reserved to the states, not individuals, as inividuals were not a party to the ratification, the states were. But I like Justice Thomas' explanation:
"In each State, the remainder of the people's powers-- "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States," Amdt.10--are either delegated to the state government or retained by the people. The Federal Constitution does not specify which of these two possibilities obtains; it is up to the various state constitutions to declare which powers the people of each State have delegated to their state government. As far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, then, the States can exercise all powers that the Constitution does not withhold from them. The Federal Government and the States thus face different default rules: where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power--that is, where the Constitution does not speak either expressly or by necessary implication--the Federal Government lacks that power and the States enjoy it."
Justice Thomas, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)