Some people, even in 1847 were for throwing down a Constitution that endorsed slavery. William Lloyd Garrison was one. But you apparently think that a Constitution that endorses slavery should have been binding on Lincoln.
Unlike Garrison, Lincoln was always willing to obey the law, although he always strove to end slavery. When you quote SCOTUS opinions about returning "property" the only logical implication is that -you- consider people property yourself. Laugh all you want.
To return to the original point, he had plenty of authority to issue the EP, as he said:
"You dislike the emancipation proclamation; and perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional--I think differently. I think the Constitution invests the commander in chief with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there--has there ever been--any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it helps us, or hurts the enemy?"
The Supreme Court never said anything at odds with that, despite your attempts at Soviet style disinformation.
What's really laughable is how STUPID the slave holders were to liable themselves to the war power of the president. Had they not attempted to throw down the best government yet made, the selfish bastards could have kept their human chattels for generations.
Walt
Yes - until amended the Constitution should be binding on Lincoln. Clinton, Bush etc. too.
The Supreme Court never said anything at odds with that, despite your attempts at Soviet style disinformation.
Soviet style? ROTFL!. You quote Lincoln, 'has there ever been--any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed?'
The US Supreme Court had long since answered that question. Please see #307 again, or read it here:
Our duty is to determine under what circumstances private property may be taken from the owner by a military officer in a time of war. And the question here is, whether the law permits it to be taken to insure the success of any enterprise against a public enemy which the commanding officer may deem it advisable to undertake. And we think it very clear that the law does not permit it.' Chief Justice Taney, Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. 115 (1851)The question is why you have a such a problem understanding the English language.
Had they not attempted to throw down the best government yet made, the selfish bastards could have kept their human chattels for generations.
Wrong. The Confederacy threw off that government and formed a new one. The pompous Yankees that signed on the bottom line and then reneged were the selfish bastards. The Yankees sailed the oceans to bring slaves here, the Yankees selfishly allowed hundreds of thousands to die in the Middle Passage, the Yankees selfishly sold their slaves for the money, only when the slave trade was prohibited did the selfish Yankees consider the practice of chattel slavery with anything other than delight.
Lincoln selfishly represented a slave OWNER for the MONEY! The selfish Lincoln hated slavery so much that he urged ratification of an Amendment guaranteeing slavery FOREVER - 'I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable'. Go push YOUR Soviet style disinformation on someone else.