back to top
|Texas Defender wrote:
As you say, the Preamble does not grant power. All it does is state the intent of the PEOPLE to form a Union.
The only powers granted to the president can be found in Article II of the Constitution. And, by the way, there is no: "Article II, Section 8."
Apparently, by: "Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" you imply that somehow that gives the president the power to ensure that no state ever leaves the Union. But the Constitution does not state that. It is only your interpretation, which many others do not share.
The Constitution set up an ingenious system in which power was shared by the three branches, and two branches were able to: "Check" the third if any branch tried to exceed its authority.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the Union formed by the PEOPLE is permanent, and that the federal government has the authority to force the states that created it to remain part of it. In order to get the PEOPLE in the various states to ratify the new Constitution, it became necessary to add the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, to it. They were designed to limit the power of the federal government in order to protect the rights of the PEOPLE.
The Bill of Rights stated what the government could not do, and retained the powers not given to the federal government to the states and the people. Nowhere is that more clear than in the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that states may not leave the Union, therefore in 1860, they had the power to do so. (This was changed by the USSC decision:"Texas v. White" in 1869). The President has the powers granted to him in Article II. Nowhere in Article II does it say: "The President will make war on any state that tries to leave the Union." Your contention that the Preamble to the Constitution somehow gives him that power is absurd.
Well, If you can point me to the correct article where the President's Oath is, I be very grateful. However, you don't deny that the President's Oath is in the Constitution, do you?
As far as Constitutional judicial prudence, basically there are two types: "what is written", and "what is meant." Both are subject to interpretation.
If you restrict Lincoln's judicial prudence to "what is written", you must also restrict his opponent to the same restriction...such as "We the People."
Would that, "We the People.." being written words of the Constitution include the slaves???
Are we to demand that President Lincoln "follow the Letter of the Law", while his opponent is not required???
The agruement for "States Rights" always begins with "where is it written", but is not asked for when it comes to the first words of the Constitution of "We The (How did you ephasize that?)PEOPLE."
Last edited on Fri Apr 13th, 2012 01:53 pm by ebg