Posted on 04/16/2003 5:44:44 AM PDT by Lady Eileen
Washington, DC-area Freepers interested in Lincoln and/or the War Between the States should take note of a seminar held later today on the Fairfax campus of George Mason University:
The conventional wisdom in America is that Abraham Lincoln was a great emancipator who preserved American liberties. In recent years, new research has portrayed a less-flattering Lincoln that often behaved as a self-seeking politician who catered to special interest groups. So which is the real Lincoln?
On Wednesday, April 16, Thomas DiLorenzo, a former George Mason University professor of Economics, will host a seminar on that very topic. It will highlight his controversial but influential new book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. In the Real Lincoln, DiLorenzo exposes the conventional wisdom of Lincoln as based on fallacies and myths propagated by our political leaders and public education system.
The seminar, which will be held in Rooms 3&4 of the GMU Student Union II, will start at 5:00 PM. Copies of the book will be available for sale during a brief autograph session after the seminar.
Better yet. I'll tell it to two Chief Justices who agree completely with it - Marshall and Taney. Two beats one, Walt.
I'll also tell it to two more Justices who agree with it - Curtis and Story. That makes four, and four also beats one. Live with it.
The Constitution nowhere says what the president may do in regards to the Writ.
To the contrary, Walt. It is a logically inescapable legal situation that he may not act in to suspend the writ. This is proven in the following terms:
P1. The writ may only be suspended by Article I, Section 9's clause.
P2. Article I, Section 9's clause is vested in the legislature as stated by the Constitution.
Premise 2 necessarily precludes anybody but Congress from acting on Article I, Section 9's clause. Premise 1 necessarily precludes habeas corpus from being suspended by any means other than Article I, Section 9. Even your false god admitted that much.
If habeas corpus may only be suspended by Article I, Section 9's clause, and Article I, Section 9's clause may only be invoked by the legislature, it is logically IMPOSSIBLE for the president to legally or constitutionally suspend habeas corpus.
It is the burden of the LOSING party to appeal a court ruling, Walt. The loser in the Merryman case was Lincoln's administration. If Lincoln disagreed with the decision, it was his burden under the United States Constitution and its established judicial system to either (a) live with the ruling despite his dislike for it or (b) appeal it and seek to have it overturned. Simply ignoring it cause you don't like it is not a legally or constitutionally valid option.
Yeah, cause Lincoln unconstitutionally violated the judicial system of the United States by ignoring the ruling.
It should be noted that Merryman had participated in treasonous acts when arrested
Yet he was never charged with treason, therefore his arrest was in violation of habeas corpus.
Mercy atttended everything Lincoln did. Merryman was exceedingly lucky not to be hanged.
Though it was often the case that Lincoln's government executed people without due process, in order for Merryman to have been hanged legally, he would have first had to have been charged with a crime and then convicted of that crime and sentenced to hanging. No such act ever occurred.
I guess you have no comment on the rebel invasion of Kentucky.
Too, Lincoln didnt have to send his "army" to Missouri. Local federal authorities and loyal Union men there were able and active.
Walt
Such as? Names?
Walt
It is the burden of the LOSING party to appeal a court ruling,
Taney was the losing party. His reputation went completely into the toilet, over this and Dred Scott.
Notice that Chief Justice Rehnquist says the question of who may suspend the Writ has never been "authoritatively" answered. He has all your sources, but he is more fair than you are.
You've seen the quote I use from him at least a half dozen times, and you still do not qualify your interpretation by including it.
I have not yet felt compelled to just out of the blue say, "President Lincoln had every right to suspend the Writ and no one can gainsay this!"
But I do feel compelled to respond when you try and BS people.
I would think that you get some Freepmail from those who don't appreciate your ignoring this important addition to the record -- the remarks of the current chief justice. Maybe you do. And yet no hint of fairness manages to sneak into your notes.
Walt
Legally the colonies had no right to declare independence. That's why it was called a 'revolutionary' war and also why the founding fathers weren't surprised when they had to fight for their freedom. Unlike the confederates they didn't pretend that their actions were legal by referring to it as 'secession'. Another difference is that the founding father's won their war. They must have wanted victory more that you sothron types did, huh?
If we're talking about the same program, "April 1865: The Month That Saved America" then I don't think either Walt and I will dispute it. The fact that in March 1865 the confederate congress passed legislation authorizing the raising of black combat troops is undisputable. What I dispute is the ridiculous claim that the confederate army enlisted blacks in combat roles throughout the war. The evidence against that is overwhelming. Any blacks with the confederate army prior to the spring of 1864 were there in an unauthorized, in fact illegal status. At that time the confederate congress passed legislation authorizing the enlistment of free blacks and slaves for support roles only.
The confederate constitution did not mince words. The judicial power of the confederacy was to be vested in one supreme court and such other courts as the congress would establish. It's right there in black and white. So what you're saying is that Davis and the congress deliberately ignore the constitution by refusing to establish the one institution which could keep them from ignoring the constitution? Neat trick. And you complain about Lincoln.
Jefferson - "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union ..."
What time do the men in white coats wake you up every morning? Your assertion has got to be the most INSANE comment I ever read. Somewhere a village is missing their idiot.
Walt
What a crock of crap! Missouri was split, like the other border states, on the question of secession. While it is true that the state convention voted unanimously not to secede in March 1862, the arsenals that you speak of were federal arsenals and Governor Jackson had no legal right to seize them. So the sending of militia to seize it was illegal. You say that 'feds responded by marching the U.S. army on the state capital to oust the governor and state legislature' which is nonsense, and that 'the state government convened in October in the town of Neosho' which is false. The legislature remained in office, and Claiborne Jackson was impeached and removed from office. It was the impeached governor and the minority of the state senate which met in Neosho and voted secession, something that they lacked the authority to do. So Missouri remained legally in the Union throughout the war, and while she did send men to fight on both sides the majority fought for the Union.
What I find particularly amusing is that RW lists Ronald Reagan as one of his idols. Must have missed that whole "Eleventh Commandment" thing.
Nope,,,,,,it is NOT cheap liquor! LOL!
Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark.
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.