|View single post by Texas Defender|
|Posted: Fri Apr 13th, 2012 06:47 pm||
It has become apparent to me that I am wasting my breath trying to explain the Constitution and separation of powers to you, but I'll make one final response, in this case to your: "Four points."
1) When you start your treatise on the Constitution with an error- in this case not knowing that there are only four sections in Article II of the Constitution, it damages the credibility of whatever you say afterwards. If you are careless with some facts, it shows a tendency to be careless with all.
2) You admit that the Preamble to the Constitution does not confer powers to the President, but then you somehow imply that the words: "In order to form a more perfect Union" mean that the Union must be permanent and the President must enforce this permanence. There is nothing in the Constitution to support this contention. That would make about as much sense as religious zealots claiming that the U.S. was officially a Christian country because in Article VII of the Constitution, it gives the date as: "The Year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty-seven." (Also expressed as: "AD.") To call that a stretch is a gross understatement.
3) Either the Constitution gives the President the power to do something, or it does not. For example, the President does not have the authority to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Only the Congress does. It isn't a matter of a strict or a liberal interpretation of the Constitution. The President simply is not granted that power.
As for the slaves, they weren't granted the status of: "People" in the Constitution. Obviously, that was changed later. But in 1787, that is the way it was under the Constitution. It didn't matter what abolitionists or anyone else thought about that. It was simply a statement of fact.
4) It is obvious that you don't understand the powers granted to the Judicial Branch, and haven't read ex parte Merryman. So, I am providing a link that will explain it to you.
In the ex parte Merryman case, John Merryman was illegally arrested by the military authorities. Chief Justice Roger Taney most certainly had the authority to ORDER that Merryman be brought to court under a writ of habeas corpus and have the authorities show cause why he was arrested.
When the authorities refused to comply, the Chief Justice issued a WRIT of attachment and sent a U.S. marshal to enforce it. The marshal was turned away, so Taney ordered that Merryman be released, explaining that the Executive Branch was assuming powers not granted to it by the Constitution. Of course the Judicial Branch had no army, so Taney couldn't enforce his order. But he certainly had the authority to issue it.
The Judicial Branch DOES have power that it can exercise over the Congess and the President in certain situations. Obviously, it can judge legislative acts to be unconstitutional. It can also judge executive actions to be unconstitutional through the power of judicial review. It is the Judicial Branch that interprets the Constitution, the: "Law of the land." The Congress and the President do not have the authority to : "Over rule" or: "Nullify" the Supreme Court if they don't like the Court's decision that certain legislation or executive actions are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is the FINAL authority on that question.