| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: javal1 |
|
||||||||||||||
| Clement Vallandingham | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Thu Sep 9th, 2010 01:30 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Barlow Member 
|
Why doesn't President Obama treat this minister wanting to burn the Quoran like Lincoln treated Clement Valandingham and suspend habeas and have him arrested?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Sep 11th, 2010 07:59 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
ole Member 
|
Ain't wartime, Barlow. He only gets to do that when there's some domestic shooting going on.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Sep 11th, 2010 10:08 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
Texas Defender Member 
|
Barlow- First of all, burning a Koran (Assuming that it is your Koran) is not an illegal act. Therefore, you can't have your freedom taken away for doing so. What would be an illegal act would be if any president presumed to suspend the writ of habeus corpus, because he does not have the legal authority to do so. Only the Congress has that authority. The writ of habeus corpus establishes a person's right to appear before a judge before he can be imprisoned. When the writ is issued, the government must bring the prisoner to a court where a judge can determine if the prisoner can be held legally or not. Overriding the writ is mentioned in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 9. Article 1 details the powers given to the Congress. It says that Congress cannot suspend the writ :"Unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Nowhere in the Constitution is this authority granted to the president or anyone else in the executive branch. In April of 1861, Mr. Lincoln was concerned that the capitol might be isolated if Maryland and Virginia seceded. On April 27th, a week after the Baltimore riots, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus along the route from Philadelphia to Washington DC. He gave military officials the authority to arrest anyone in the area who might threaten public safety (At least, that was the excuse). Mr. Lincoln's action granting himself the authority to suspend the writ (Which was further delegated to military officials) was completely illegal. He tried to justify this action in a speech to the Congress on July 4, 1861 when he said that only he could act fast enough to keep the government from: "Going to pieces." The most famous case resulting from this action in 1861 involved a resident of Maryland, John Merryman. He was arrested, and a writ of habeus corpus was granted by Chief Justice Roger Taney (The case was known as "ex parte Merryman.")The military refused to comply. When a marshal attempted to serve a writ of attachment to summons military officials, they refused to honor it. As a result, Taney could do nothing, and Merryman was held for almost two months before being released. The suspension of habeus corpus was expanded in 1862 to be nationwide (24 Sep62). This allowed government officials, down to the local level to arrest anyone that they deemed to be, or even suspected of being, disloyal. Even saying anything at all negative about the government or any officials got many arrested. It has been estimated that between 10000 and 15000 people were thus arrested. Very few of them ever posed any danger to the: "Public safety." Since the legislative branch of the government would not join the judicial branch in opposing these illegal actions, the executive branch went unchecked. Thus these illegal actions continued until March of 1863, when the Congress passed the Habeus Corpus Act, thereby legalizing the suspension of the writ. Habeas Corpus in the Civil War Last edited on Sat Sep 11th, 2010 11:58 pm by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Sep 12th, 2010 02:51 am |
|
4th Post |
|
CleburneFan Member 
|
I've been trying hard to figure out if some obscure law applied that could be used to force the reverend to stop his plan. I came up with some charge of reckless endangerment, because I feel that if this man had gone forward with his irresponsible act, it would have endangered countless numbers of Americans here and abroad. That said, he probably cannot be stopped before he burns the Korans, only if he actually does it. I can't think of a law that could be applied before he had his little bon fire. I'm sure there were fire laws. Some experts said that burning books releases toxic chemicals from the ink, but still he would have to actually committ the act to be charged. This situation is tricky in our country of freedom of expression. It is a relief that this buffoon looked to his "better angles" and decided to cancel this foolish act. Hopefully he will never have a change of heart.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Sep 12th, 2010 04:58 am |
|
5th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Cleburne Fan- While Terry Jones didn't burn a Koran as he was threatening to do, there are plenty of news stories of people destroying Korans in NYC and other places. Did you really think that stopping Terry Jones would stop everyone else? Man ignites Koran near Ground Zero, apparently prompted by Terry Jones; crowd appalled by zealot No doubt the Islamists who want to destroy western civilization will use these incidents to incite the masses overseas. But they would try to kill Americans whether Americans destroyed Korans or not. In the end, nothing is changed by it. The values of one group can't be reconciled to the other. Being an infidel is not a capital offense here. Freedom of expression is something we value in this society. That is why we even allow our own flag to be burned. That freedom does not exist in a lot of other places. We should not be eager to stifle that freedom because others say or do things we don't like. Just as you can't legislate morality, you can't legislate an end to stupidity. There are millions of people getting away with actually violating our laws every day. Trying to find ways to arrest and lock up everyone who does stupid things that aren't illegal would be an impossible task, as well as being an endeavor unworthy of Americans.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Sep 12th, 2010 12:41 pm |
|
6th Post |
|
Doc C Member 
|
Just a thought, not that I'm would even in a second contemplate genocide, what would this world be like if one could eradicate the far left and right populations of the planet? Doc C
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Sep 12th, 2010 02:29 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Interesting thought, Doc C. Who do you appoint to make the determination of where to draw the line to decide who is too far left and who is too far right?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Sep 12th, 2010 03:57 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
9Bama Member
|
Texas Defender wrote: Cleburne Fan- A good friend and fishing guide ( a profession I admire) once remarked that there is absolutely no shortage of stupid people... he was right! It however, is not criminal to be stupid.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Sep 12th, 2010 04:44 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
Doc C Member
|
Texas That's the rub. Who decides. One who I believe to be on the radical right might be concieved as on the left by someone else. However, I have a great disdain for anyone who takes themselves too seriously. Doc C Last edited on Sun Sep 12th, 2010 04:44 pm by Doc C |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Current time is 10:20 am | |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > The Lounge > Idle Chit-Chat > Clement Vallandingham | Top |
