Honoring a great president.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Just to be sure... *shifts away*

[David Floyd]

HELLO -- Lincoln WAS elected through a process that included the popular vote, but it turned out in his first election that he won by the majority of the electoral vote, rather than by the popular vote.

I don't quite see your point. You decry the secession process in the South for not being based on popular vote - well, neither was Lincoln's election. You say the minority shouldn't push decisions on the majority - OK, but the fact is that nearly 2/3s of Americans voted AGAINST Lincoln.

Imran,

The Constitution allows for the suspension of habeus corpus in "Cases of Rebellion" in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2.

Two points. First, secession was not an act of rebellion. The act of secession resulted in States separating themselves from the United States as a whole. What foreign entities do cannot be considered rebellion against the United States. However, if, WITHOUT seceding, South Carolina had started armed resistance against federal law (pick one), THAT would be a rebellion.

The second point is really that YOU are missing the point. What I said was that Lincoln wasn't acting in a manner consistent with individual liberty. Your response was that he had the power to do so. While that is certainly debatable, it is certainly not an answer to my original point.

The clause does not state how is must come about and does not say Congress must initiate it.

Not specifically, however, the good news is that we have a SCOTUS case that deals with this - Ex parte Merryman. Here is a DIRECT QUOTATION from that decision:

Under the constitution of the United States, congress is the only power which can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ.

Ex parte Merryman was also cited in McCall v. McDowell.

Of course, Lincoln ignored the Merryman decision.

[David Floyd]

By the way, Imran, if you don't like Merryman and Chief Justice Taney, let's try a quote from Ex parte Bollman and Chief Justice John Marshall:

If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so.

[Imran Siddiqui]

First, secession was not an act of rebellion.

The federal government never considered the states to be seceeded. It is certain within the government's power to determine what secession is.

Ex parte Merryman

Ex parte Bollman

First, I thought you didn't like SCOTUS rulings on interpretation of the Constitution... I expect you to back expansion of Interstate Commerce Clause cases next .

Secondly, remember, the President doesn't have to enforce SCOTUS decisions if he doesn't want to. The Constitution gives him that right (by giving him executive power and not explicitly giving the Courts judicial review which must be enforced). That's part of checks and balances.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I don't quite see your point. You decry the secession process in the South for not being based on popular vote - well, neither was Lincoln's election. You say the minority shouldn't push decisions on the majority - OK, but the fact is that nearly 2/3s of Americans voted AGAINST Lincoln.

My point is that even though Lincoln was constitutionally elected by the majority of the electoral votes rather than the popular vote, his election DID INDEED include the popular vote in the process.

The secessionist decision in each Southern state except for Texas completely excluded the popular vote, which reinforces my argument that it imposed minority rule over the majority.

If the planter politicians sincerely believed that the majority supported secession, they should not have had any qualms in including the popular vote.

[David Floyd]

First, I thought you didn't like SCOTUS rulings on interpretation of the Constitution...

Not the case.

Secondly, remember, the President doesn't have to enforce SCOTUS decisions if he doesn't want to. The Constitution gives him that right (by giving him executive power and not explicitly giving the Courts judicial review which must be enforced). That's part of checks and balances.

What?? That's ridiculous - of course the President has to follow Supreme Court decisions. His oath of office is to uphold the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. Before you make an argument about the grounds for Marbury v. Madison, by 1861 that case had been around for almost 60 years. It was established precedent, and it was not even controversial, nor is it today. If Lincoln felt that was the issue, he could have made that argument, but he didn't.

Secondly, even if SCOTUS can't MAKE the President enforce their decisions, you are still wrong in saying that Lincoln did not violate the Constitution by suspending habeas corpus. He violated the Constitution because Taney said so in Merryman, and Merryman in part rested in precedent established by Marshall in Bollman.

[David Floyd]

The federal government never considered the states to be seceeded. It is certain within the government's power to determine what secession is.

Really? And which power is that? Is it in the same place as the imaginary prohibition against secession? Come on, Imran - if secession is unconstitutional because, as you claim, the Constitution doesn't specifically grant States the power to secede (9th and 10th Amendments notwithstanding), then you can't turn around and say that the Constitution grants the federal government a power to determine if a State has seceded or not.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Not the case.



What?? That's ridiculous - of course the President has to follow Supreme Court decisions. His oath of office is to uphold the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. Before you make an argument about the grounds for Marbury v. Madison, by 1861 that case had been around for almost 60 years. It was established precedent, and it was not even controversial, nor is it today. If Lincoln felt that was the issue, he could have made that argument, but he didn't.

Secondly, even if SCOTUS can't MAKE the President enforce their decisions, you are still wrong in saying that Lincoln did not violate the Constitution by suspending habeas corpus. He violated the Constitution because Taney said so in Merryman, and Merryman in part rested in precedent established by Marshall in Bollman.

So why did Congress accepted Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus later on, as being constitutional?

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Really? And which power is that? Is it in the same place as the imaginary prohibition against secession? Come on, Imran - if secession is unconstitutional because, as you claim, the Constitution doesn't specifically grant States the power to secede (9th and 10th Amendments notwithstanding), then you can't turn around and say that the Constitution grants the federal government a power to determine if a State has seceded or not.

aw who cares about all that mumbo jumbo... it's wrong to try to break up the union and declare independence... accept it and move on

lincoln

william T sherman

[David Floyd]

My point is that even though Lincoln was constitutionally elected by the majority of the electoral votes rather than the popular vote, his election DID INDEED include the popular vote in the process.

And since when has the electoral college been required to vote the way the states say they should? Just because it has historically doesn't mean that it is required to. Really, MrFun, if you want a true majority decision, then there should have been a run-off election between Lincoln and Douglas. I bet Douglas would have won that election

Not that there is Constitutional precedent for run-off elections or election by the popular vote. But don't try to tell me that Lincoln was democratically elected (he wasn't) by a majority of the voters (he wasn't).

[David Floyd]

So why did Congress accepted Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus later on, as being constitutional?

Congress doesn't have the power to declare anything Constitutional, especially when the Supreme Court has already said otherwise.

[David Floyd]

aw who cares about all that mumbo jumbo... it's wrong to try to break up the union and declare independence...

Wow, change a couple words in there and I could almost call you a Tory loyalist

[Imran Siddiqui]

Really? And which power is that? Is it in the same place as the imaginary prohibition against secession?

Who decides what secession is then? What body decides definitions?

if secession is unconstitutional because, as you claim, the Constitution doesn't specifically grant States the power to secede (9th and 10th Amendments notwithstanding), then you can't turn around and say that the Constitution grants the federal government a power to determine if a State has seceded or not.

When was that my argument for secession (though if the Constitution allowed for it, obviously the states would have that right)? And it is not inconsistant whatsoever, if it was. The Constitution doesn't give the states the power to seceed but says the government can suspend habeus rights in cases of secession. Who decides that? The federal government has to.

That's ridiculous - of course the President has to follow Supreme Court decisions.

No he doesn't. Remember Andrew Jackson's famous declaration? "Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it". Everyone agrees that Jackson had that right. If Congress doesn't like the President ignoring the Supreme Court, they can impeach him, but aside from that and the court of public opinion the President has no obligation to enforce Supreme Court dictates.

you are still wrong in saying that Lincoln did not violate the Constitution by suspending habeas corpus. He violated the Constitution because Taney said so in Merryman, and Merryman in part rested in precedent established by Marshall in Bollman.

According to Supreme Court precedent, yes, but it could be argued that the Constitution doesn't really say what the Court said it did. Like I had the discussion with Berzerker, what is Constitutional doesn't necessarily mean what is correct (in your own views of course).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Congress doesn't have the power to declare anything Constitutional, especially when the Supreme Court has already said otherwise.

Congress didn't reverse SCOTUS' ruling, they simply voted that they wished to suspend habeus rights for those people Lincoln had designated, thereby putting into conformity with the SCOTUS decision.

[David Floyd]

Who decides what secession is then? What body decides definitions?

I would direct you to the 9th and 10th Amendments.

When was that my argument for secession

If that wasn't your argument, I apologize. That's the most common argument that I get.

The Constitution doesn't give the states the power to seceed but says the government can suspend habeus rights in cases of secession.

The power is implied in the 9th and 10th Amendments. Further, nowhere does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to suspend habeas corpus in the case of secession, only the cases of rebellion or threat of invasion. Secession does not mean the same thing as either.

No he doesn't. Remember Andrew Jackson's famous declaration? "Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it". Everyone agrees that Jackson had that right.

Ah, you would be referring to Worcester v. Georgia. I already thought of bringing that example up, but I figured you'd do it for me.

My answer? Irrelevant. Regardless of the "who can make him" argument, the President is legally bound to uphold the United States Constitution. This is found in Article II Section 1, and is found within his Oath of Office requirement to "preserve, protect, and defend...". It is not possible to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution without upholding it.

Who decides what the Constitution says? The Supreme Court. For a full explanation of SCOTUS powers, refer to Marbury v. Madison - Marshall does it far better than I can. The point, though, is that the President is CERTAINLY obligated to follow Supreme Court decisions. Not to do so would be a violation of his oath of office, and this is ESPECIALLY clear when the SCOTUS decision involves an interpretation of the Constitution.

If Congress doesn't like the President ignoring the Supreme Court, they can impeach him, but aside from that and the court of public opinion the President has no obligation to enforce Supreme Court dictates.

Actually, Congress's power to impeach and the fact of elections do NOT create obligations on the President. Those are simply ways of ensuring that the President fulfills his duties. If the President does NOT follow the Constitution, and if Congress refuses to impeach him, and if the people re-elect him, then unfortunately there's not a lot that can be done. But that doesn't mean the President is devoid of obligations to follow the law.

According to Supreme Court precedent, yes, but it could be argued that the Constitution doesn't really say what the Court said it did. Like I had the discussion with Berzerker, what is Constitutional doesn't necessarily mean what is correct (in your own views of course).

That's very true, I do believe that the ICC has been stretched much too far, for example. However, I do find it interesting that you usually slam me for maintaining my position in the face of SCOTUS decisions to the contrary, whereas now you are doing the same damn thing.

So which is it, Imran? You can't have it both ways.