Posted on 12/10/2002 6:57:25 AM PST by billbears
Marbury says otherwise. "The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution." Try again.
You wail and whine about President Lincoln's actions and cite just the one person, the pretty much discredited Roger Taney.
Sorry Walt, but you have yet to offer any valid reason whatsoever why Taney should not have ruled on that case. Try again.
Of course you excuse the secessionists, who had neither legal or moral grounds for their actions.
No Walt. The right to self government supersedes statute. Try again.
You need to find criticism of Lincoln in the record contemporary with his actions.
And I did just that, Walt. It's called Ex Parte Merryman. Try again.
This throwing up of hands, "Eek, look what mean old Lincoln did!" is just the same thing, as I say, that changed Columbus from great hero and explorer to syphilitic oppressor of minorities.
Perhaps, but that would presume somebody was doing either. You have yet to establish that. Try again, Walt.
"The success of the Maryland policy became a political byword and was celebrated, beyond the borders of Maryland, throughout the war...Republicans would later enjoy substantial bipartisan agreement on the necessity of the early arrests in Maryland.", says Dr. Neely.
No ammount of words from Dr. Neely, or Noam McPherson for that matter, will change the fact that The Lincoln resorted to unconstitutional means though. Try again, Walt.
Your carping is just sour grapes.
The only sour grapes here are being pointed at by an individual who has just had his rear end handed to him in debate after he grasped at every straw available to deny the common sense reality that the court ruled against The Lincoln and The Lincoln ignored it. That person is you, Walt, and your attempts to legitimize your unsupportable position become more absurd by the day.
Listen, why don't you try for a hearing on that Muslim CNN, whatever it's called? They love tearing down America too.
No thanks, Walt. I think they'd be much more receptive to Constitution-hating, America-hating traitors such as yourself who could go on there to blame George Bush for september 11th while singing praises for your hero and candidate of choice Bill Clinton.
Lincoln didn't use unconstitutional means. By the standard of the day, he had as much right to interpret the Constitution as Taney did.
You are applying modern day standards to an historical person. But now you are outed.
Walt
A right to interpret the Constitution individually does not supersede the right of the court to exercise judicial review as established under Marbury. Marbury made that VERY clear - "The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution." Try again.
You are applying modern day standards to an historical person.
Not at all, Walt. What you are alleging to be the practice of the day - an absurd notion that logically dictates all court rulings void on simple disagreement with them elsewhere - was simply not the practice of the day. No ammount of saying otherwise is going to change that. Your desparation sure is showing though!
Taney was acting as a circuit court judge. President Lincoln's attorney general supported the president's actions. If Taney had a problem with that, he should have had the issue brought before the Supreme Court.
The Constitution only says what Congress may -not- do in regards to the Writ; it says nothing about what the president --may-- do.
If you are going to take this tack you need to raise your hand and swear off ever saying that secession is legal because it is not explicitly prohibited.
Walt
Yeah, you're right. Andrew Jackson suspended the Writ 47 years before Lincoln did, and he wasn't even president.
Walt
Yes Walt. And circuit courts rule on cases too.
President Lincoln's attorney general supported the president's actions.
An attorney general opinion does not overturn a ruling of the court, Walt.
If Taney had a problem with that, he should have had the issue brought before the Supreme Court.
It was not Taney's burden to appeal his own ruling, Walt. That would have been absurd. The burden to appeal according to judicial procedure was on The Lincoln. He failed to do so.
The Constitution only says what Congress may -not- do in regards to the Writ; it says nothing about what the president --may-- do.
Nonsense Walt. We've been over this one several times. The Constitution designates the power to suspend habeas corpus to the legislature by way of Article I, Section 1. Nowhere does it extend that power to the president, nor does it indicate anywhere that any individual should have the right to suspend it beyond those it specifically indicates - the legislature. Every court ruling ever made on this issue has confirmed this position, including the standing precedent of the Supreme Court. No ammount of bloviation will get you around that, Walt.
If you are going to take this tack you need to raise your hand and swear off ever saying that secession is legal because it is not explicitly prohibited.
I don't purport secession's "legality" on the grounds that it is not explicitly prohibited, Walt. I support secession on the grounds that it is an exercise of an inherent right beyond any law and that the use of coercion to enforce obedience otherwise is itself a violation of the compact of a union. Try again.
Your desparation is showing again, Walt. The fact that an individual committed an unconstitutional act and got away with it in no way makes it any more constitutional.
You really, really need help. Please seek it before it's too late.
Tell them up at church about your problem, I think they may be able to steer you to a competent mental health professional.
Your desparation[sic] is showing again, Walt. The fact that an individual committed an unconstitutional act and got away with it in no way makes it any more constitutional.
The fact that Jackson was commended by the Congress for doing so shows that you are making a modern day judgement on an historical person.
One thing about Jackson -- there weren't even telegraphs when he suspended the Writ. How could Congress alone have the power? It doesn't make sense, and the Constitution doesn't forbid it.
Walt
Not at all Walt. Congress has always passed laws and supported measures that were unconstitutional. That in no way made them any more constitutional. Try again.
One thing about Jackson -- there weren't even telegraphs when he suspended the Writ.
What's your point? It may take a little longer, but there's no reason they still can't get the message to him.
How could Congress alone have the power?
Cause that's what the Constitution you hate so much says.
It doesn't make sense
Centuries of common law say otherwise. The suspension of habeas corpus has historically always been a matter of the legislature.
Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
No it doesnt. I reckon you mean Art. sec. 9. para 2
"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."
Now, tell me where the Constitution forbids the president from suspending the Writ?
Walt
Yes Walt. It does. Article I, Section 1 states "All legislative Powers herein granted," meaning in this article, "shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"
One of the powers granted in article I is that of suspending habeas corpus and section 1 states that it shall be vested in the Congress.
Now, tell me where the Constitution forbids the president from suspending the Writ?
On a strictly technical reading, in Article I, Section 1 because it specifically vests that power in the Congress and not the president.
The test is simple, if you never again post to me, ever, on any subject unless I refer to you personally, I will concider that you might have some shred of sanity left.
I won't post to you, and you won't post to me. Is it a deal?
No matter what I say in a post, if it doesn't concern you personally, you will just ignore it, and I will do the same unless you refer to me personally. Deal? Can ya do it? Are ya sane enough for that? Can ya JUSTSHUTUPANDTAKEIT?
Simply answer "deal" or "no deal" and you will pass or fail based on your reply.
The Writ has nothing to legislative power. It's a privilege.
I am still waiting for you to tell where the Constitution -specifically- prohibits the president from suspending the Writ.
Walt
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.