View single post by Shadowrebel
 Posted: Wed Aug 2nd, 2006 12:36 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Indy posted:

Whether after the fact makes it legal or not, you have to admit that the Constitution was being tested like never before and they were treading on new ground.

I agree with this and think that neither side used the Supreme Court, as they should have, to settle secession.

The fact that Congress (who you state is the branch that can suspend habeas) backed up his actions should not be dismissed.

Congress can suspend Habeas and backing up his actions ex post facto was against the law:

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.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. (source: U.S. Constitution Article I Section 9) Article one defines the powers of Congress:

Article. I.

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. (source: U.S. Constitution).

I have no problem with you disagreeing with my intrepretation of the Constitution on this issue. My interpretation is only my opinion on what the this section of the Constitution means.

I would assume that Lincoln was entitled to a few mistakes, just as someone like Stonewall Jackson was.

We all are entitled to a few mistakes, Lincoln included, I have probably used up my lifetime supply of mistakes.;) But please Stonewall making mistakes?????:D Some things are sacred.

I am willing to post what I think each side should have done within the system to try to solve their differences, either on this thread or if more apporprate on a new one. I would be interested in what others think.

Regards,

Shadowrebel (John)

 Close Window