This a response to the previous entry. Read it here.

There are so many inconsistencies, half-truths and omissions in Judge Napolitano’s speech that I find it peculiar that you chose to use that as your introduction on the subject.

The first comment I will make is this: To judge Lincoln on what soldiers under his control may have done illegaly has no legitimacy. Do you know how many people were under his command? That is the same as saying that Abu Ghraib was Bushs’ fault. Bush wasn’t there, he didn’t over see or approve of what was going on. And in the same vein, it isn’t as if Lincoln was standing there in front of the soldiers as they were breaking the law and approving of what they did. Maybe he did approve, and maybe he didn’t, but you cannot make a blanket statement that Lincoln’s soldiers did wrong, so obviously Lincoln did wrong. That’s just poor logic.

Secondly, Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus:

To start, Habeas Corpus is not invoked in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. It is an assumed law. Therefore, it was not exactly unconstitutional for Lincoln to suspend it. This was a war, a massive civil war, if you remember. Lincoln was not walking down the street one day when he thought, hey, I think I’ll suspend Habeas Corpus. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation’s capital surrounded by hostile territory.

Judge Napolitano also failed to mention that Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States also suspended Habeas Corpus, and not only that, he delcared martial law as well.

The Judge also, it would seem, forgot to mention that the United States Congress passed a law during WWII that suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus for unlawful combatants.Bourbon, I look forward to your series on Abe Lincoln, but try to include a video with more substance next time.

Update: In regards to PacMan’s comment that “If the President in Chief isn’t responsible for the actions of his soldiers…” I do agree that he must take responsibility in that all-encompasing way that a President does, but that doesn’t mean HE did it, nor did HE have any literal responsibility for it. It is ridiculous to assume that every time a soldier (or any government figure for that matter) goes out and does some dumb ass thing on his own that it’s the President’s fault. That is just ignorance.


COMMENTS / 6 COMMENTS

The United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in the Suspension Clause, located in Article One, Section 9. It states:
“ The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

You are an idiot.

If the “commander in chief” is not ultimately responsible for the actions of his soldiers, then who is? the “sort of commander in not so chief?”

PacMan added these pithy words on Feb 28 08 at 5:15 pm

PacMan:

I was careful not to say that Habeus Corpus is never mentioned. However, as I said there is no law saying that it MUST exist. And even the Article One, Section 9 which you quoted, shows that it was lawful FOR Lincoln to suspend it, as he suspended it in the “[Case] of rebellion or invasion…”.

And while I appreciate the comment, just because you disagree with me that doesn’t make me an idiot. But thanks for trying.

Tom Collins added these pithy words on Feb 28 08 at 5:29 pm

Wrong.

You said, To start, Habeas Corpus is not invoked in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. It is an assumed law.”

FACT- It isn’t an assumed law because it is specifically stated as law in the Constitution (see my first comment)

Instead of you blogging your own opinion, before making blanket statements, someone who wasn’t an idiot would have researched it…. you failed to, thus making you an idiot.

PacMan added these pithy words on Feb 29 08 at 6:08 pm

PacMan:

First of all, this is MY blog, so I can say whatever the hell I want, but thanks for playing. Secondly, and I hate to stress this too much, because it seems that no matter what I say you are going to argue with me. Habeas Corpus is never specifically guaranteed. It is mentioned in the Section 9, but not in the same way that every other right is mentioned. It is never promised to anyone. The only reason that it was mentioned in that Section, was to let Judges know when they could and couldn’t do with Habeas Corpus, as it was an assumed common law.

You’ll notice that nowhere in the Constitution will you find a sentence starting: “The right of Habeas Corpus is guaranteed to all… etc.” And why is that sentence not there? Because it is ASSUMED that everyone knows that it is a basic right. Which is why it is only alluded to in Article 1, Section 9.

Also, you are right, someone who isn’t an idiot would have researched it. Which is why I researched. And also why you will find several links in the main copy of the blog.

Again, I don’t want to alienate you, as this is a fairly new blog, and we want as many people commenting and viewing as we can get. So please, continue to argue with me, I love it. And honestly, while I might sound like I’m pissed and hate you, it’s not true. It’s all in the spirit of good fun.

However, please don’t tell me what I can and can’t do on my own website.

Tom Collins added these pithy words on Feb 29 08 at 6:19 pm

you can’t be an idiot on your own website, only on Abe’s crotch, which is where you probably like it.

i’m godzilla, your japan.

PacMan added these pithy words on Feb 29 08 at 11:23 pm

Heres to “Honest Abe”

To his courage in only freeing the slaves 2 years into the war in areas that he had no authority over. Also, to his courage for not freeing the slaves in the border states that he needed to beat McClellan in the 1864 elections.

Heres to the man who had the integrity to take the Irish off the immigrant boats and use them in the front lines of most of the engagement of the Civil War. i.e. Fredericksburg and Sharpsburg.

Heres to the guy who raised 50,000 troops to invade his own country BEFORE South Carolina did what the original 13 colonies did 84 years before by following their example in throwing down a tyrannical government. “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government.” One great American said the following. “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, IN TIMES OF PEACE, standing armies without the consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the civil power. For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world, For imposing taxes on us without our consent. FOR DEPRIVING US IN MANY CASES OF THE BENEFIT OF TRIAL BY JURY. For suspending our own legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts , burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death desolation and tyranny. We therefore determine that these colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states.”

All of these could have been spoken by the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, or Robert E. Lee. However, they were not spoken by the General from Arlington house (Robert E. Lee) they were spoken by another Virginian one Thomas Jefferson in reference to King George as reasons for the colonies to become free and independent states.

If one defends the actions of Lincoln (which is easy to do if you haven’t studied the real history of 1840-1868) one must also in the same breath defend the British Crown and King George.

I am glad that we are one country and that we are 50 states and not 2 separate nations. However, If you are going to regurgitate some 7th grade text book of history written by people who have changed the actual history in order to create an American hero. More power to you but if you look deeper into the actual events leading up to the civil war and of the civil war you will have a different opinion of the “Great Emancipator” or should I say the Great killer of thousands of Irish Union soldiers, 100,000s of Americans, and women and children.

Oh and by the way one should take a look at the Bill of Rights. Mainly the 10th Amendment. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Any President that ignores 1/10th of the Bill of Rights should not go down in history as a great man let alone an American Hero.

Just a final thought….. If we would have lost the Revolutionary war and the British were writing our history books. Guess who would be on the one dollar bill.

MikeSanDiego added these pithy words on Mar 02 08 at 8:04 pm

SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated.

Return to Top

My response to “Violator: A Series on Abe Lincoln”

Tags for this post:

,

FRESH / LATEST POSTS

Recent rants...