NationStates Jolt Archive

So the question is, does war time grant extraordinary powers to the Executive, and if so, do these powers escape any sort of legal or judicial accountability? If they do, does it have precedent? Does the fact that we are not at war in any declared condition affect this? Can Republicans continue to use the excuse of "war" to grab power, then "make up rules" because "it isn't really a war like we've had"?

When Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War, he did so during insurrection or rebellion, and then referred the matter to Congress. What precedent does this set? That Lincoln followed the Constitution, since the suspension of habeus corpus is mentioned only in Article I of the Constitution, under the guidelines of the Congress.

Conclusion? Republicans need to stop using history as an excuse, and start using it as a lesson. Lincoln grants you no grace in this matter.

War doesn't grant jack fucking shit to the president. If we can suspend all our laws that easily, then we're all set to burn the Reichstag and set ourselves up with a dictator.

Lincoln wasn't as great as everyone thinks. Emancipation Proclamation? That was a way to keep Europe from coming in on the South's side (the South was where they got all their cotton and tobacco, so it wasn't that unlikely). Lincoln said before the war that his priority was keeping the Union together and it didn't matter whether the slaves were freed or not. Then he switched horses to rally the troops.

War doesn't grant jack fucking shit to the president. If we can suspend all our laws that easily, then we're all set to burn the Reichstag and set ourselves up with a dictator.

Lincoln wasn't as great as everyone thinks. Emancipation Proclamation? That was a way to keep Europe from coming in on the South's side (the South was where they got all their cotton and tobacco, so it wasn't that unlikely). Lincoln said before the war that his priority was keeping the Union together and it didn't matter whether the slaves were freed or not. Then he switched horses to rally the troops.

Nothing you said resembles a response to anything I wrote, and we are all now dumber for reading it. You get no points, and you do not pass.

well war or not the executive branch has become enamored with executive orders that make law w/o congressional input

good/bad/or indifferent they exist until congress invalidates with new law or there is a long court challenge - they don't escape - they are just enforced until sometime way in the future

in addition there are .gov agencies that make their own law with little if any oversite by anyone - BATFE for instance - were you aware that they think a 14" piece of string with loops is a "machinegun" - clearly out of control and idiots too

:gundge:

So the question is, does war time grant extraordinary powers to the Executive, and if so, do these powers escape any sort of legal or judicial accountability? If they do, does it have precedent? Does the fact that we are not at war in any declared condition affect this? Can Republicans continue to use the excuse of "war" to grab power, then "make up rules" because "it isn't really a war like we've had"?

When Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War, he did so during insurrection or rebellion, and then referred the matter to Congress. What precedent does this set? That Lincoln followed the Constitution, since the suspension of habeus corpus is mentioned only in Article I of the Constitution, under the guidelines of the Congress.

Conclusion? Republicans need to stop using history as an excuse, and start using it as a lesson. Lincoln grants you no grace in this matter.

Even if the President is granted extraordinary powers to override law in wartime, that does not apply to Constitutional law. Nor does it eliminate accountability and checks and balances designed to observe and verify that the actions of the government branches are, in fact, legal and constitutional.

In other words, even if the President says a particular program is constitutional does not make him the final judge on whether or not it actually is.

well war or not the executive branch has become enamored with executive orders that make law w/o congressional input

good/bad/or indifferent they exist until congress invalidates with new law or there is a long court challenge - they don't escape - they are just enforced until sometime way in the future

in addition there are .gov agencies that make their own law with little if any oversite by anyone - BATFE for instance - were you aware that they think a 14" piece of string with loops is a "machinegun" - clearly out of control and idiots too

:gundge:

So I guess the question would be: Should the Executive use this opportunity to expand and consoldiate Presidential power, or use this time as an opportunity to provide clear legal leadership, under the advice of the Congress (the People), for delineating a clearly defined set a laws regarding unlawful combatants?

And I extend a pre-emptive thanks to those who refrain from Godwinning the thread.

Even if the President is granted extraordinary powers to override law in wartime, that does not apply to Constitutional law. Nor does it eliminate accountability and checks and balances designed to observe and verify that the actions of the government branches are, in fact, legal and constitutional.

In other words, even if the President says a particular program is constitutional does not make him the final judge on whether or not it actually is.

How do we address the claim that non-citzens aren't granted any sort of Constitutional protections?

How do we address the claim that non-citzens aren't granted any sort of Constitutional protections?

they have the nominal court protections and the ability to use the constitutional ones unlike say mexico, ie as an alien you can sue/etc but not vote [unless in chicago, etc lol]

How do we address the claim that non-citzens aren't granted any sort of Constitutional protections?

The Constitution defines and limits government. It doesn't give certain peoples' rights, it denies the government the power to take them away. And it doesn't specify who the government can and can't deny those rights to because the government has no power to deny them at all.

How do we address the claim that non-citzens aren't granted any sort of Constitutional protections?
The American constitution specifies some rights to all citizens and others to all persons. That sounds to me like the latter ones applies to foreigners as well. Also the declaration of independence, and the whole idea that made the USA special was founded on rights that "all men" have even if the government doesn't admit them. Among them are "life" and "liberty".

So the question is, does war time grant extraordinary powers to the Executive, and if so, do these powers escape any sort of legal or judicial accountability? If they do, does it have precedent? Does the fact that we are not at war in any declared condition affect this? Can Republicans continue to use the excuse of "war" to grab power, then "make up rules" because "it isn't really a war like we've had"?

When Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War, he did so during insurrection or rebellion, and then referred the matter to Congress. What precedent does this set? That Lincoln followed the Constitution, since the suspension of habeus corpus is mentioned only in Article I of the Constitution, under the guidelines of the Congress.

Conclusion? Republicans need to stop using history as an excuse, and start using it as a lesson. Lincoln grants you no grace in this matter.
I agree to your conclusion. The constitution doesn't grant any extra privileges to governments during wartime. Besides historically every war in the USA has been used as an excuse to increase central power, and then it has not been restored, so if you like federalism or limited government you should be extra watchful against Washington during wartime.

Those who give up freedom for temporary security deserve neither