Honoring a great president.

[Alexander's Horse]

Tell us about why Stalingrad was lost again Floyd

[Imran Siddiqui]

Congress is clearly the branch being referred to, UNLESS otherwise specified.

Why?

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.

I'm reading it as applying to the States as well.

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

Is it really in the Constitution at all in terms of "US shall"?

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

Just about every time it refers to Congress, it is listed. The exception being Section 9. Why is it different than the rest of Article 1, which refers to 'Congress' or each branch of Congress?

[David Floyd]

Why?

In some cases, because the powers referred to relate to powers of Congress in Section 8.

I'm reading it as applying to the States as well.

Tell ya what. I know a couple of Con law professors at UT. I'll see if I can get their opinion in their office hours.

Is it really in the Constitution at all in terms of "US shall"?

Yes. Article VI Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Just about every time it refers to Congress, it is listed. The exception being Section 9. Why is it different than the rest of Article 1, which refers to 'Congress' or each branch of Congress?

Simply because Article 1 Section 9 is referring to certain powers that could fall under powers granted to Congress in Section 8. Either the Clauses in Section 9 are referring to passing laws, or they are referring to economic actions, except in the case of the habeas corpus clause (Clause 2), but because of the location of Clause 2 - within the rest of the powers DENIED TO CONGRESS, it's only logical to assume that Congress is the relevant power.

[David Floyd]

AH,

Stalingrad was primarily lost because of the Soviet encirclement of 6th Army.

What you are referring to is my previous claim that Operation Torch impeded the ability of the Germans to relieve 6th Army. I stand by that claim, although I never claimed that was the ONLY reason.

[MrFun]

My memorial thread for Abraham Lincoln has come to include a mention about Stalingrad during World War II?

[David Floyd]

Ah, MrFun returns. Care to comment on the overwhelming evidence presented that Lincoln violated the Constitution and acted tyrannically?

[MrFun]

Imran has pretty much done an excellent job, already.

But here is an excerpt from my capstone, undergraduate paper that has argued that Lincoln suspended the habeas corpus based on support from previous historical precedents:

"The changes of the new nation at the end of the American Revolutionary war really were not complete until the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787, which would replace the Articles of Confederation. One of the events that occurred between the end of the war for independence, and the final drafting of the U.S. Constitution, was Shays’ Rebellion in 1786, an event that would last for six months.1 This occurred during a severe economic depression that devastated many farmers of western Massachusetts. Governor James Bowdoin of Massachusetts declared the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in order to suppress the growing rebellion, and then called for a mobilization of the army against them.2 The governor knew that his act was authorized by the state constitution of Massachusetts, which was drafted in 1780.3 The state’s General Court justified this policy by declaring the existence of “violent and outrageous opposition” to the constitutional order.4 The Massachusetts government, so soon after the war of independence, had already determined what would justify the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus; which, in this case, was a violent insurrection that produced a danger to the public."

[MrFun]

Here is another excerpt from my research paper:

"In 1793, Justice James Iredell of the U.S. Supreme Court presented the following statement in April: “Although the right to habeas corpus was the ‘natural and just claim of every honest Man’ against the arbitrary power of his government, ‘a power of discretionary Imprisonment’ was necessary ‘to save the public from destruction’ for a while when public danger was imminent.”8 These chain of developments were again, greatly influenced by the earlier crisis of Shays’ Rebellion, and in spite of opposition who fought against the possibility of suspension of writ of habeas corpus, a sense of security and public safety in times of insurrection seemed to have taken hold."

[David Floyd]

Imran has pretty much done an excellent job, already.

Erm, not on disputing the fact that SCOTUS ruled Lincoln violated the Constitution.

As for your paper, I hope those aren't your only precedents, because the Shays Rebellion happened significant before the Ex parte Bollman decision in 1807, which Taney correctly cited in his Ex parte Merryman decision.

Historical precedents do NOT override legal precedent.

[David Floyd]

"In 1793, Justice James Iredell of the U.S. Supreme Court presented the following statement in April: “Although the right to habeas corpus was the ‘natural and just claim of every honest Man’ against the arbitrary power of his government, ‘a power of discretionary Imprisonment’ was necessary ‘to save the public from destruction’ for a while when public danger was imminent.”

The power to suspend habeas corpus is not in dispute. It exists - with Congress. Both Marshall and Taney stated this in decisions 50+ years apart.

[Dis]

did anyone open this thread epecting a post about Bill Clinton as I did?

[David Floyd]

Well, I'll certainly say that I'd rather have Clinton in office than Lincoln, for damn sure!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Simply because Article 1 Section 9 is referring to certain powers that could fall under powers granted to Congress in Section 8. Either the Clauses in Section 9 are referring to passing laws, or they are referring to economic actions, except in the case of the habeas corpus clause (Clause 2), but because of the location of Clause 2 - within the rest of the powers DENIED TO CONGRESS, it's only logical to assume that Congress is the relevant power.

So your point here is that only Congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus?

If that is your point, then Congress did exercise its power, by accepting Lincoln's decision to suspend the habeas corpus, rather than rescinding it, and demanding that Lincoln revoke the suspension. So Congress did have the power, and it exercised its power in this case.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dissident
did anyone open this thread epecting a post about Bill Clinton as I did?

I have anything but honorable respect for Billie Clinton.

[Alexander's Horse]

I think he's the greatest president since FDR.

We wouldn't be in this fine mess if he was still around.