Replies

Chief Justice Rehnquist has said the question has not been --authoritatively-- decided even now.
So does that mean that Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, Roger Taney, Benjamin Curtis, Joseph Story, William Rawl, Robert Yates, and Richard Henry Lee are not authorities on the Constitution? All of them have answered that question in agreement with the Constitution, which does not permit The Lincoln to suspend habeas corpus.
So unless Bill Rehnquist is claiming that John Marshall, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest lack authority in the area of the Constitution, he is simply wrong. So tough, both for him and for you if either of you don't like that.

That sounds -so- grown up.

What it means is that Chief Justice Rehnquist has done something that none of your sources take into account; he considers the context of what Lincoln faced. Lincoln faced a situation scarely considered by any of them.

The Chief Justice considers the circumstances; all you want to do is smear President Lincoln unfairly.

Those who can see, will see.

Walt

That sounds -so- grown up.

Then welcome to the grown up world, Walt! In this world, things don't always happen the way you like them to happen. Reality does not always mirror what you desire it to be in your mind. In this particular case, it means your false god committed a wrong, an imperfection - he violated the Constitution. You obviously do not like that fact, likely because of the fallability it demonstrates in a person you have attempted to deify, but it is never the less a fact. Whining about it will not make it go away, so you would be better off accepting it as it is and moving on. That you do not like to do so is not of my concern, so tough if you do not like it.

What it means is that Chief Justice Rehnquist has done something that none of your sources take into account; he considers the context of what Lincoln faced.

So Roger Taney, who actually witnessed the event and actually ruled upon it himself as it happened before his courtroom, did not take the context of that same event into consideration? Or how about Curtis, who wrote his commentary in direct response to that same event after witnessing it play out. Did he not consider the context either, Walt? I ask because it is a simple matter of reality that both of those men had greater proximity to the context of the event that, barring the invention of a time machine, Bill Rehnquist could ever dream of achieving. Surely that reality is known to you. Yet you insist upon trusting the guy from a college speech 130 years after the case rather than two equally credentialed eyewitnesses including one who actually participated in the events and ruled on them at the time they happened. The only possible explanation for your misplaced appeal to authority, Walt, is that you are unable to handle the reality of that case and its implication of fallability for the man you have falsely chosen to worship.

Lincoln faced a situation scarely considered by any of them.

Curtis, who witnessed the event, did not consider the situation before him? Taney, who wrote a decision on the event and whose court was a participant in the event, did not consider the situation before him? Please.

Those who can see, will see.

...and those who can see but choose not to do so, will not. You clearly fall into that latter category.

What are the principles of this [Republican] party, as indicated by its declarations and its acts? It has but a single principle, and that is hostility to negro slavery in the United States. Some of its members have called it a party for human freedom; but this is a mistake; for though there are in the state of slavery in different parts of the world, men of all races, yet it has manifested no sympathy for any but the negro; and even to negro slavery, it seems indifferent outside of the United States. I maintain it has no principle whatever, but hostility to negro slavery in the United States. A man might be for or against the tariff, the bank, the land distribution, or internal improvements; he might be a Protestant or Catholic, a Christian or infidel; but if he was only actuated by an intense feeling of hostility to negro slavery, or, as that is interwoven with the social system of the South, if it were only known that he was anxious that the Federal Government should exercise all its powers for the destruction of the southern States, that man would have been accepted as a good member of the Black Republican party. Speech of Hon. Thomas L. Clingman, of North Carolina, against the revolutionary movement of the anti-slavery party; delivered in the Senate of the United States, January 16, 1860.