Posted on 02/12/2003 12:07:03 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
Article I, Section 1, which specifically gives the ONLY means of suspending the writ to Congress, says otherwise. And when it comes to trusting what the Constitution says or does not say, Walt, I tend to put more weight in the text of the document itself than in you. Sorry if you don't like that, Walt.
Article I, Section 1, which specifically gives the ONLY means of suspending the writ to Congress, says otherwise.
It doesn't say "only". You only wish it did.
The Constitution nowhere mentions what the president may or may not do in regards to the Writ.
The Supreme Court did say in the Prize Cases: "The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power."
President Lincoln had to act. Anyone who loves this country won't quibble with what he did.
Walt
It 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."
See the words "shall not be suspended, unless"? That means it may not suspended except by that clause when its circumstances are met, Walt. That means -only- that clause.
And of that same clause, the Constitution says "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." That means only the Congress, Walt, because that act of vesting a power in Congress excludes it from being vested it the Executive. A car parked in your garage cannot also at the same time be parked in my garage, Walt. Just the same, a power belonging solely to Congress cannot at the same time belong to the President.
The Constitution nowhere mentions what the president may or may not do in regards to the Writ.
To the contrary - see above. At first glance it is truly baffling as to why you cannot comprehend such an obvious fact, but then I remember - you never look upon that which you have already chosen not to see.
To the contrary - see above.
The president is not mentioned. The question of whether the president may or may not suspend the Writ has not been authoritatively answered unto this very day.
Walt
It doesn't say that -specifically-. You will tell any kind of lie.
Walt
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" - Article I, Section 1.
That's about as specific as they come, Walt.
You will tell any kind of lie.
Much to the contrary, and in fact it has just been shown that you are the liar on this one yet again.
...because he does not have the power to suspend it. Only article I section 9 clause 2 permits that power, and according to the constitution, that same clause belongs to the legislature. If it belongs to the legislature, it is logically excluded from the posession of the president. Therefore the president does not have the power. There is no way around this fact, Walt. The Constitution makes it perfectly clear. No ammount of word torture or semantical bullsh*t artistry will ever change that fact, which makes me wonder exactly what you hope to gain by engaging in those very same practices.
The question of whether the president may or may not suspend the Writ has not been authoritatively answered unto this very day.
When it comes to the constitution, Justice John Marshall is about as high of an authority as they come. He answered it. Justice Roger Taney is also a high authority. He answered it. Justices Curtis and Story are also high authorities. They answered it. Thomas Jefferson, one of the foremost of the founding fathers, is also a high authority. He answered it. Robert Yates was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, making him an eyewitness authority. He answered it. Richard Henry Lee, Francis Dana, and William Rawle were all politically involved founding fathers of strong authority on the Constitution. They all answered it. The records of the debates at the Constitutional Convention itself also indicate very clearly that the clause was intended for the legislature. Some 56 founding fathers were there, all of them strong authorities, and none voiced anything different about that clause. So they answered it. And on top of that, the Constitution itself is very clear and straight forward on the issue. So you can repeat your above line all day and night if you desire, walt, but that will not make it any more true than flapping your arms will give you flight. Back in the real world, Walt, it is a simple fact of history that the question you now ask has been answered in virtually unanimous agreement by the foremost authorities on the Constitution in American history. Live with it.
...because he does not have the power to suspend it. Only article I section 9 clause 2 permits that power, and according to the constitution, that same clause belongs to the legislature. If it belongs to the legislature, it is logically excluded from the posession of the president
None of that is in the least logical or compelling.
The current Chief Justice of the United States doesn't hold your opinion, and neither did the Congress that refunded fine and interest to General Jackson.
You just look a fool to ignore all that.
It's all "Mean old Lincoln kicked our butts!"
Walt
The president is not mentioned. That would add the specificity you need, but it's not there.
Walt
You wouldn't know a logically compelling argument if it were stapled to your forehead. That makes you unqualified to judge.
The current Chief Justice of the United States doesn't hold your opinion
Chief Justices Marshall and Taney plus Justices Story and Curtis all did. Four always beats one, Walt. and neither did the Congress that refunded fine and interest to General Jackson.
Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional, Walt. And the congress before them knew it did not belong to anybody but themselves when they debated whether to suspend it at Jefferson's request pertaining to the Aaron Burr affair. Try again.
...because he does not have the power. The Constitution gives the power only by way of Article I, Section 9, Clause 2. That same Constitution also says that clause belongs to the legislature. Such a statement is inherently exclusive. I cannot give an apple to you, Walt, and at the same time give that same apple to 4CJ, Non-Seq, and billbears.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.