The right to life and constitutional law.

[lord of the mark]

Ah yes, Lincoln as a lone crusader for equal rights for blacks.

nice straw man. Of course he wasnt a lone crusader, and many of the factors that led him to change his mind impacted his fellow citizens as well.

[lord of the mark]

Executive Mansion, Washington, April 4, 1864.

A.G. Hodges, Esq Frankfort, Ky.

My dear Sir: You ask me to put in writing the substance of what I verbally said the other day, in your presence, to Governor Bramlette and Senator Dixon. It was about as follows:

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling. It was in the oath I took that I would, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power. I understood, too, that in ordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. I had publicly declared this many times, and in many ways. And I aver that, to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensabale means, that government -- that nation -- of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together. When, early in the war, Gen. Fremont attempted military emancipation, I forbade it, because I did not then think it an indispensable necessity. When a little later, Gen. Cameron, then Secretary of War, suggested the arming of the blacks, I objected, because I did not yet think it an indispensable necessity. When, still later, Gen. Hunter attempted military emancipation, I again forbade it, because I did not yet think the indispensable necessity had come. When, in March, and May, and July 1862 I made earnest, and successive appeals to the border states to favor compensated emancipation, I believed the indispensable necessity for military emancipation, and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by that measure. They declined the proposition; and I was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it, the Constitution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter. In choosing it, I hoped for greater gain than loss; but of this, I was not entirely confident. More than a year of trial now shows no loss by it in our foreign relations, none in our home popular sentiment, none in our white military force, -- no loss by it any how or any where. On the contrary, it shows a gain of quite a hundred and thirty thousand soldiers, seamen, and laborers. These are palpable facts, about which, as facts, there can be no cavilling. We have the men; and we could not have had them without the measure.

["]And now let any Union man who complains of the measure, test himself by writing down in one line that he is for subduing the rebellion by force of arms; and in the next, that he is for taking these hundred and thirty thousand men from the Union side, and placing them where they would be but for the measure he condemns. If he can not face his case so stated, it is only because he can not face the truth.["]

I add a word which was not in the verbal conversation. In telling this tale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God. Yours truly,

A. Lincoln

[Kidlicious]

You're a kick Imran, but I've never seen such pig headedness.

[lord of the mark]

"It is the eternal struggle between two principles, right and wrong, throughout the world. It is the same spirit that says 'you toil and work and earn bread, and I'll eat it.' No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation, and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle." [Lincoln-Douglas debates, 15 October 1858]

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy"


"And then, there will be some black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonnet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation..."
-- August 26, 1863 - Letter to James Conkling

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=MrFun]Contrary to the Southern mythology that Lincoln was a would-be dictator, Lincoln was a serious proponent for supporting constitutional law and sought to operate within its confines as much as possible.[/q]

Hehehehehe... Yeah, his jailing of newspaper men who critisized his handling of the war was very Constitutional. Of course, the Supreme Court struck him down after the fact.

Ah yes, Lincoln as a lone crusader for equal rights for blacks. I believe you'll find, amazingly, that Lincoln's position on blacks changed as the radical Republicans gained more and more power and Thaddeus Stevens was able to get more and more of his way. Lincoln was a great politican and did see where the winds were blowing, though. You have to give him that. Though his change of opinion from sending blacks back to Africa to giving them equal rights happened pretty quickly.

I'm not excluding political motive -- I believe in several factors that influenced Lincoln, one was politics, the other was genuine change in his morality and opinion. Your argument is more simplistic in that you have this tunnel vision of focusing only one facet of a complicated person such as Lincoln was. He was an excellent politician and could play the game well but he also had strong moral ground that he stood upon.

And I also never said he was a lone crusader -- Frederick Douglass was another such crusader and more so than even Lincoln was.

Some of the policy decisions and actions Lincoln took, such as with newspaper offices were unconstitutional but I still stand by the argument that other decisions, such as the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, was necessary.

Anyway, we have gotten on this side trail and have successfully threadjacked this thread.

[Nickiow]

Re: The right to life and constitutional law.

According to Imran, in United States, there is no legal right to life, because it is not stated as such in our U.S. Constitution, and that the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing at all, so therefore, the phrase, "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" also has no legal bearing.
.

The constition and and all others laws for that matter are the laws that society agrees to govern itself with, the DOI sets out that no laws whatever can take away inalibale rights that are inherent, which is what the AWI is about and the DOI expresss are.

See Locke for instance about inaliable rights of man.

The Constition gives equal righst in law to all of society, it gives due process and gives Congress the lawfull authority to set out laws for the judicial taking of life.

So yes the DOI is not a legal document in the same senmse as the constition, but it sets out what the war was for and over, and is extremly important as to the intent of the laws that follow from this doctrine.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Think about this: If there was a Constitutional 'right to life', why is the Death Penalty allowed?
.

Because common law favour s life over death and liberrty over imprinsment, but some crimes can be punished by due process that includes the forfiture of life as puishment, they are clearly set out are the exception to the right of life, liberty etc, except if you trnasgress the rules of society, if you dont then you continue to enjoy those rights and exception mark the extent, ie your right to life is limited only by exceptions that are codiefied in law that result in a loss of life or liberty.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Mao


Wait, so I'd like to know an example of a "basic human right" that can't be taken away.

Free will.

[Nickiow]

I'd think they were fairly novel when Jefferson put them in the Declaration. After all, he DID put them in the Declaration, instead of saying the King violated our rights. The idea that life, liberty, and property/persuit of happiness were absolute rights was a fairly new idea, first stated by John Locke. Jefferson didn't come much after Locke and no country in Europe believed in such rights, as they were led by absolute monarchy. There was no such 'common currency' of political thought.

Small nit pick, Uk had a bill of rights that delinates those very same rights and pre dates the US who adopt them and a a version of the Uk bill of rights. Uk had not been an absolute monarchy since charles.

[Nickiow]

Yes, he said the King has violated these novel rights. Articulated maybe a 100 years ago, if not less. A belief in rights that had not been adopted by any European country.

Nope.

He cites UK fundamental Law, (that gaurentee those roight to all englishmen and mention the Royal mcharter that gaurentee all colonies to be held as governed by those same laws.) Blackstone which the US adopts as its fundamtal law,.

[Nickiow]

There is no such thing as a common law right of liberty, however.

Yes there is.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk1ch1.htm

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


How does Blackstone, chapter 1, relate to this statement?

oopps, maybe i should not post as read for while...

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by MrFun



But why was this law against "cruel and inhumane punishment" legislated in the first place?

I would think it had something to do with our organic laws, which includes the protection of "right to life."

Yes, in Monmouth rebelion one of the judges, jeffries was very inventive in punishment, since treason was the worst crime in society, the punishment was to be as bab, public whipping 100 lashes for th rest of your life, burnt alive and so on, depending of wht mood the judge was in.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
interestingly enough, James Madison proposed the following

"The amendments which have occurred to me, proper to be recommended by congress to the state legislatures are these:

First.
That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration--That all power is orginally vested in, and consequently derived from the people.
That government is instituted, and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution. "


Does anyone know the history of why this amendment was not passed? Federalist objections?

Try Grahems constitonal history of seccesion.http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...608185-7658055

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by MrFun


It would be absurd to the point of extremity if we tried to create a legal system that was ironclad and absolute when it comes to principles and ideas.

And besides, I disagree with you arguing that the state can legitimately put a citizen to death in regards to convicted felons -- sanctioning of the death penalty is based on unjust laws.

Well, the rights privaleges and exemetions etc of the contract are created to fulfill the purpose they are created, while all have inaliable rights, some actions allow society to take action when you act within society, so while all individuals have the right to libeerty, it may be that society can remove that right because of circamstances, you may be insane and need to be held in confinmenmt for your own protection as well as society.

All individuals have the right to life, the execptions to this are marked out in fundamental law, those exceptions mark the limit to the right of life,but to argue that this means there is no right to life is bizzare.