Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GOPcapitalist
The Constitution nowhere mentions what the president may or may not do in regards to the Writ.

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

84 posted on 02/20/2003 5:29:56 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]


To: WhiskeyPapa
The president is not mentioned.

...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.

87 posted on 02/20/2003 9:22:03 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson