Congress cannot override a constitutional requirement by passing a law. (And I don't give a crap what the 1863 Supreme Court has to say on the matter. Lincoln very nearly arrested Judge Taney, so let's just say those guys were under duress.)
Once again you are ignoring the obvious. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in the rebellious parts of the country. It did not outlaw slavery, either in the rebellious parts or the non-rebellious parts. Absent the 13th Amendment, what was to prevent slavery from being reintroduced in the Southern states post rebellion? So as a point of fact, the 13th Amendment affected the entire country.
And you accuse me of ignoring the obvious. What part of "shall be delivered up" do you not understand? You can't "free" slaves by Diktat. (At least you can't do it in a Constitutional Republic with a Constitutional clause which doesn't allow it.)
Lincoln exceeded his Constitutional Authority, but *NO ONE* would dare challenge him at that point.
And we are supposed to give a crap about your biased opinions on Lincoln and the rebellion? Try relying on facts for a change.
Lincoln very nearly arrested Judge Taney, so let's just say those guys were under duress.
Yes, Taney was under such duress that be voted against the government in the Prizes Case.
And perhaps that's because your claim that Lincoln very nearly arrested Chief Justice Taney is bullsh*t, like most of your other stuff. There are any number of biographies of Roger Taney out there, carefully documented works by reputable historians like James Simon, Bernard Steiner, and Walker Lewis. Men who spent a considerable amount of time researching and writing their books. And in not a single one of them does the biographer mention anything about an arrest attempt by Lincoln or anyone else. Nothing on arrest warrants not served. Nothing about any threat to Taney's life and freedom during the Civil War or prior to it. Are you suggesting that they all purposely ignored this salient fact and deliberately omitted it from their books?
And you accuse me of ignoring the obvious. What part of "shall be delivered up" do you not understand?
And what part of "did not outlaw slavery, either in the rebellious parts or the non-rebellious parts" is unclear to you. Nowhere in the Emancipation Proclamation is slavery outlawed. Nowhere in law prior to the ratification of the 13th Amendment is slavery deemed to be illegal. Now I understand that the rule of law means little to Confederacy supporters, but facts are facts whether you accept them or not.
You can't "free" slaves by Diktat. (At least you can't do it in a Constitutional Republic with a Constitutional clause which doesn't allow it.)
It just wouldn't be a DiogenesLamp post without a helping of manure, would it?
Lincoln exceeded his Constitutional Authority, but *NO ONE* would dare challenge him at that point.
I must have missed the part of the Constitution that proclaims you as the ultimate source for what is Constitutional and what is not. Which clause is that?