Honoring a great president.

[Imran Siddiqui]

you took the position that Lincoln didn't violate the Constitution.

I took the position that Lincoln may not have violated the Constitution under a textualist reading of the Constitution. Read my first post in this discussion.

Congress never suspended habeas corpus, merely empowered the President to do so. If you are interested in a textualist reading of the Constitution, that's a violation of the Constitution, as well as a violation of the separation of powers.

The Constitution says nothing about 'seperation of powers' (find those terms in the document for me), or forbids a branch from delegating some of its powers to another (as long as that branch is the one doing so). From the text there is nothing wrong with it.

The power to suspend habeas corpus is listed with all of the Congressional powers. I understand your point that Article I, II, and III all grant powers to multiple branches, but in each case, the grant of power is clear. Therefore, a textualist reading would lead me to believe that when it does not specifically mention who has the power to suspend habeas corpus, that power must lie with Congress given the position of the clause in the Constitution.

If you look at it from a textualist view, the clause does NOT mention 'Congress', even though many clauses in Article I do ('Congress shall', etc). Why doesn't it? Why is it distinct in that regard?

[David Floyd]

I took the position that Lincoln may not have violated the Constitution under a textualist reading of the Constitution. Read my first post in this discussion.

You took the position that according to the way you read the document, Lincoln didn't violate it. I replied that according to SCOTUS and the way THEY read it, he did. Now that I've MORE THAN adequately proved that point, I'm moving on to discuss with you why you are wrong from a "textualist" standpoint, ignoring what the Court said.

The Constitution says nothing about 'seperation of powers'

I never claimed that it did. I simply said that Lincoln violated the separation of powers. Even if not unconstitutional, that's surely a tyrannical thing to do.

or forbids a branch from delegating some of its powers to another (as long as that branch is the one doing so). From the text there is nothing wrong with it.

Except for the minor fact that the power isn't explicitly given. I think that this is correct because of the spirit of the Constitution - limited government and separation of powers, to be specific to this case. Both of the concepts, especially the second one, are greatly weakened if branches of government can freely give their power away to other branches.

If you look at it from a textualist view, the clause does NOT mention 'Congress', even though many clauses in Article I do ('Congress shall', etc). Why doesn't it? Why is it distinct in that regard?

By that argument, then, Clause 1 of Section 9:

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

Would simply mean that Congress can't prohibit it, but the President can. That's kinda silly.

Clauses 3-7:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

Are obviously discussing Congressional powers. Read Section 8. Congress isn't specifically mentioned in any of those clauses, though.

Clause 8 of Section 9 clearly is discussing a power prohibited to the Congress.

So, in saying that Clause 2, the habeas corpus clause, is referring to the President, you are making a special exception for a single clause, in a Section that is clearly referring to Congress. That just doesn't make logical sense.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You took the position that according to the way you read the document, Lincoln didn't violate it.

You assume too much. Did I ever say that's how I read the document?

I think that this is correct because of the spirit of the Constitution

Spirit doesn't mean jack in a textualist view.

Would simply mean that Congress can't prohibit it, but the President can. That's kinda silly.

Well seeing how the President doesn't have the power to deal with migration or importation, he probably could not . This is important for later:

Clauses 3-7:

Part 2 of Clause 6 doesn't. It says vessels from one state can't be forced to enter, clear, or charged duties in another one if it goes past the State's territorial waters.

Clause 8 of Section 9 clearly is discussing a power prohibited to the Congress.

Seeing as how Title of Nobility was/is historically an executive function, can't you see how a President can give them out?

So, in saying that Clause 2, the habeas corpus clause, is referring to the President, you are making a special exception for a single clause, in a Section that is clearly referring to Congress.

It isn't entirely, as I've shown. But you also forget that the President is Commander-in-Chief meaning that he is in charge when 'Rebellion or Invasion' comes about. Naturally he would make decisions on jailing traitors and the such. Therefore suspension of habeas rights could be seen to be a part of his power.

[David Floyd]

You assume too much. Did I ever say that's how I read the document?

Then at this point, you're just arguing for the sake of giving me ****. Either take a position or stop trying to convince people that I'm wrong.

Spirit doesn't mean jack in a textualist view.

Take a position or shut up. I never said spirit meant anything from a textualist view.

Well seeing how the President doesn't have the power to deal with migration or importation, he probably could not

He doesn't have the power to suspend habeas corpus, either. Unless I missed that in Article II...*checks*....nope, I didn't.

Part 2 of Clause 6 doesn't. It says vessels from one state can't be forced to enter, clear, or charged duties in another one if it goes past the State's territorial waters.

Part 2 is a pretty clear extension to Part 1, wouldn't you say? And Part 1 clearly is talking about Congressional acts, seeing as how it is talking about the regulation of commerce.

Seeing as how Title of Nobility was/is historically an executive function, can't you see how a President can give them out?

It says that no Title of Nobility may be granted by the United States. If "United States" referred specifically to the President, then why was it put in Article 1?

Look, here are examples of the wording when an Article grants a power to a branch of government other than the primary branch being discussed in the Article:

Article I Section 2

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

Article II Section 1

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Article III Section 3

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Again, why make an exception for some clauses? It would be inconsistent.

[David Floyd]

Look, this is getting ridiculous. Can we at least agree that according to the controlling legal judgment, Lincoln violated the Constitution?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If these States decide it (ain't it made possible in your constitution btw?), why should the remaining States try to keep the separatists by force?

Because once you're in, you can't leave.

Now that's an interesting opinion for a libertarian.

[Kuciwalker]

Imran is a libertarian?!

[David Floyd]

Yeah, and I'm a Socialist

[Alexander's Horse]

something like it, he's always banging on about personal liberty and small government

But apparently you can't leave

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then at this point, you're just arguing for the sake of giving me ****.

You're catching on.

Take a position or shut up.

Why should I do either?

He doesn't have the power to suspend habeas corpus, either.

According to Article I he may.

Part 2 is a pretty clear extension to Part 1, wouldn't you say?

Not really. It isn't just prevent Congress, but also States from doing those things.

It says that no Title of Nobility may be granted by the United States. If "United States" referred specifically to the President, then why was it put in Article 1?

Never said it was 'specifically' the President. Why can't both branches exercise concurrent power.

why make an exception for some clauses?

I'm not. Article I isn't just Congress' Clause. It talks about what the States cannot do as well.

something like it, he's always banging on about personal liberty and small government

But apparently you can't leave

I consider myself a sane Libertarian... or pragmatic libertarian, kind of like Shwarzenegger in California.

[Alexander's Horse]

There is never any consistency in your views Imran.

[David Floyd]

According to Article I he may.

Not according to Bollman and Merryman, and not according to a logical reading of the text, and the organization of the complete document.

Not really. It isn't just prevent Congress, but also States from doing those things.

Sorry, that's plain wrong. The States are prohibited from laying duties in Section 10 Clause 2, so Section 9 Clause 6 Part 2 can't be referring to the States.

Never said it was 'specifically' the President. Why can't both branches exercise concurrent power.

Even if this is the case, and "The United States" refers to a concurrent power, no such phrase is found in Section 9 Clause 2.

I'm not. Article I isn't just Congress' Clause. It talks about what the States cannot do as well.

Yes, and when it does so, it specifically mentions the States. This is consistent with my statement that anytime a separate branch is brought in, that branch is specifically mentioned. It's also worth noting that the States are only brought up in Section 10, not mixed in with the rest of the Article.

[Alexander's Horse]

Imran baiting used to be a major sport here until Floyd came along.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There is never any consistency in your views Imran.

Which is how I like it ... then again you assume that a lot of the views I advance are MY views.

Not according to Bollman and Merryman, and not according to a logical reading of the text, and the organization of the complete document.

A 'logical reading' of the text doesn't say that only Congress has that power. The Section isn't prefaced by saying "Congress may" such as Section 8 is.

The States are prohibited from laying duties in Section 10 Clause 2, so Section 9 Clause 6 Part 2 can't be referring to the States.

So you are saying that States may require ships to enter its ports, since that isn't forbidden anywhere else? Interesting.

no such phrase is found in Section 9 Clause 2.

So? The lack of phrase indicates a better likelihood that both can do it.

Yes, and when it does so, it specifically mentions the States. This is consistent with my statement that anytime a separate branch is brought in, that branch is specifically mentioned.

Does a preface for Article I say "Congress Powers"? So if it don't say Congress, then why should I believe it means Congress?

[David Floyd]

AH,

Imran baiting used to be a major sport here until Floyd came along.

Yeah, but I know when I'm being baited. I just enjoy talking about the stuff people bait me about

Imran,

A 'logical reading' of the text doesn't say that only Congress has that power. The Section isn't prefaced by saying "Congress may" such as Section 8 is.

It doesn't need to. Congress is clearly the branch being referred to, UNLESS otherwise specified.

So you are saying that States may require ships to enter its ports, since that isn't forbidden anywhere else?

The way I'm reading Article 9 Clause 6, it is referring to Congress. Whether or not States may require ships to enter its ports is another question, and if you have any case law on the matter, I'd certainly take a look at it. Either way, I think it's clear that Article 9 Clause 6 refers to Congress, given, again, the structure of the Constitution.

So? The lack of phrase indicates a better likelihood that both can do it.

Uh, why? If that's the case, then why have that phrase at all, anywhere in the Constitution?

Does a preface for Article I say "Congress Powers"? So if it don't say Congress, then why should I believe it means Congress?

Again, the structure of the document, and the fact that anytime Article I refers to another branch of government, that branch of government is specifically listed.