 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 13th, 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
ebg-
For your information, the Presidential Oath appears in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. You might benefit from reading the document.
I'm not sure who you are referring to in your convoluted response as: "Lincoln's opponent." But in 1861, Mr. Lincoln found the Constitution to be a hindrance to him, so he acted outside of it.
Obviously, when the Constitution was written, :"We the People" did not include the slaves. They were considered to be property, not people. You may well be offended by this, but history is about the way things were, not the way you think that they should have been.
As for the U.S. Congress during the Civil War, they allowed Mr. Lincoln to usurp their Constitutional power to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus from 1861-1863. When the Judicial Branch in the person of Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney objected to this, his orders were ignored. You may well study the case of ex parte Merryman, among others.
Since the Legislative Branch did not act in concert with the Judicial, there was no check made to the excesses of the Executive. That fact in no way means that Mr. Lincoln's actions conformed to the Constitution.
You will not find many, if any, on this board who subscribe to your: "Interpretation" that the Preamble to the Constitution somehow gives the President additional powers, or at least some moral justification for assuming additional powers, not specifically granted to him in Article II of that document.
Texas Defender-
The following is a responds to your four points:
1.)Well, your right. Article 2-section 1-paragraph 8 contains the President's Oath. Thanks!
2.) His opponent being the Southern Secessionists. Lincoln did act within the Constitution by the power granted to him by Article 2- section 1-paragraph 8 to perserve the Constitution. Again, the Preample does not grant power, it only shows scope, intent, and purpose of the Constitution.
3.) Typical agrument for seccession. Demanding that President Lincoln Abid by "the letter of the Law" as to "where exactly is it written that a state can't leave the Union"; BUT THEN, takes the liberty as to the the meaning of "We The People" by words like "obviously". Strict interpretation of the constition for Mr. Lincoln, but liberal interpretation of the Constitution for seccesionist. Obviously, Abolistist thought that slaves were People when the constitution was written. What other groups thought that slaves were people when the constitution was written? Or, do their opinion not count for the sake of the seccessionist agrument??
4.)The Judicial Branch of the United States of the America DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER OF WRIT!!!!!
the Judicial Branch only has the power of review!! That means that they can't supercede the decision of a lower court, but only can supercede the opinion of a lower court. The Judicial Branch has no power to give orders. That's why Mr. Lincoln doesn't have to obey any "orders" given by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney. Didn't you just argued that the checks and balances of the Constitution ensures that no one branch abuses their power. That includes the Judicial Branch overstepping their boundries. It is within the constitutional right of both the congress and the President's office to interprete the "law of the land" in opposition to that of the Judicial branch. Doesn't happen often, but it has happened-just like the example you give. Or do you think the Constitution gives the Judicial Branch authorty over both Congress and the President???
Last edited on Fri Apr 13th, 2012 06:29 pm by ebg