Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Abe and the Constitution
Was Abraham Lincoln justified in revoking the Writ of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War? Can you think of any circumstances now that would justify a presidential suspension of habeas corpus or any other civil right? (For a little background, go online and google "Clement L. Vallandigham writ of habeas corpus.") As always, I look forward to reading your posts and responses!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Even though presidents are the commander in chief of the country, I don't think that they can decide when to obey the constitution (not even during war). If they could do that, what would be the point of an established government? Couldn't they just become the king of the United States and rule with an iron fist? Today, if you were arrested and found out that the Writ of Habeas Corpus was suspended; You could be in jail until the government felt like releasing you. A process that could take years, or not happen at all.
Quote from Dan Matt: "If they could do that, what would be the point of an established government?"
My response to you is:
The premise of an established government in times of war understandably gives the president more powers to deal with impending firmness. Lincoln didn't wait for any amendments to be amended, which is also reasonable due to the fact that it was during a war in which the concept of democracy was tested in times of civil war. Moreover, in Lincoln's time, public opinion actually mattered, so fear of rebellion counters the despot theory of Lincoln.
In a democracy, over stepping the boundaries of ones powers given by the ultimate laws can cause one to wonder how democracy stands as firm as it did during the Civil War. It is only allowed to happen under certain circumstances; as during the civil war. Lincoln may have overstepped his powers, but I feel that he was justified in doing so in his situation. Reason being, it was war time, and congress was in near turmoil from all the secessions. Turmoil in congress can delay necessary laws for an unmeasured amount of time.
In addition, I feel that as a result of the turmoil in congress, Lincoln was right in acting outside the Constitution. As we all know, the Constitution is ultimate law, but threats to nation's stability must be dealt with swiftly.
A president should be able to lead his country in times at war, war time privileges cannot be used uncontrollably, especially in a democracy.
On a side note: I hope most of this makes sense.
I believe good ol' Honest Abe was justified in his revoking of the Habeas Corpus. He was in a serious dilemma where half the country decided to leave. I think that is a dire situation.
If today half our country decided to become independent or if we had battles going on within the country and even within a couple hundred miles, then it might be justified to suspend that Writ. Otherwise, wars that are going on outside our country do not pose as large a threat. The only threat would be the firing of a nuclear missile, and that wouldn't have a large impact on local reactions.
In bliu's response to Herrera, I agree that the president cannot always wait for Congress to make decisions. In response to Herrera, ignoring the Constitution for a mere moment for a single person in a very unique case would DEFINITELY not lead to a complete monarchy controlling "with and iron fist". That is a bit of an exaggeration. If somebody starts ignoring these laws for a large number of people, or even more than 5 or so, then we can start worrying.
As much as agree with everything that the Constitution stands for, I also believe that there are times, especially during crisis, when brash action may be taken. I think that Abraham Lincoln lived to be an honest and virtuous leader and his actions reflected his better judgement and concern for his country. Overall, I believe that it was okay for Lincoln to go against the Constitution because he took action in this serious dilemma instead of not doing anything at all.
I agree with Dex when he explained that the President cannot always wait for Congress to make decisions and it is important for him to step up and represent as a true leader of our nation by taking action instead of holding back.
In regards to Abe and his decision to "over-step" his boundaries, I believe that in certain times of crisis, the president, or any other branch of the government has the right to take action "for the greater good." Clearly, if any other politicians had a problem with Lincoln's negotiating methods, then there would have been complaints from these representatives. but as we've learned, the supreme court and congress were filled with Lincoln supporters (republicants) who didn't complain with Abe's actions. of course if southern democrats did not agree with what lincoln did, they could have complained. What I mean to convey is that no one really stood up to what Lincoln was doing, he took affirmative action for the greater good and as a result the union was forced back together. In times of crisis such as the civil war and other impending war times and terrorist attacks the president, or some body of government should be able to make efficient and just decisions.
As people of the United States we also have the right to express our feelings and views as to whether or not we believe and support the decision being made for us. that is what makes America great, and its democracy soo strong. We have the right to speak our mind and rebel or even possibly overthrow the government if we see fit.
Lincoln, as President, had every right to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus to preserve the state of the Union. During times of crisis, necessary actions are required for the protection of the people and their country. If Lincoln had not acted, opposition towards his movement would have increased steadily. His actions were completely justified under the given circumstances, the Civil War. Another example of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is during World War 2, where President Roosevelt imprisoned Japanese Americans in internment camps. While internment camps were not entirely justified, they were the necessary actions of a President during a time of great crisis. President's do not always have time to wait for Congress to make a decision, especially when 2/3 have to agree to take action. In times of great crises, the President must take the necessary precautions to protect the state of the country that he was elected to lead and protect.
As bliu stated "The premise of an established government in times of war understandably gives the president more powers to deal with impending firmness." Lincoln had no time to deal with a stalemate in Congress, therefore taking upon himself the duty to overstep his limited power as President. Though many see this as unconstitutional Lincoln did all he could to keep a nation from completley falling apart.
I understand my last comment started to stray off topic, let me attempt again. In 1942, state representatives pressured Pres. Roosevelt in to signing Executive order # 9066 (real) under this order, all Japanese -Americans had to evacuate their homes and be placed into internment camps. Sure, many of these people were truly innocent, but there was no way to prove if they were legit or not. Many americans crazed by the Pearl Harbor attacks, believe that the Japanese had correspondents in American soil. these people were not released from these camps until 1944. many people still see this as a violation of Habeas Corpus, others see it as a natural precaution in times of war. I'll let you decide.
Another point i'd like to make deals with more recent attacks on American soil: 9/11. After validating who was tied to these attacks, Pres. Bush and other politicians issued order to arrest and imprison any persons suspected to be alleged terrorists and detained in Guantanamo. Do you think that the government has the right to imprison people on the conclusions that they are tied to terrorist organizations? hmmmm.....
in response to Dan Matt... yes i do see how a president could have limitless power if he decides to. this is the start of communism under a single dictator. the question is in what times are these actions of the president acceptable, and where do you draw the line in limiting his power.
Dex: It makes sense that if the half the country threatened to leave, and we had wars going on at the same time that the president could suspend the Writ. Lincoln was right in suspending the Writ to prevent further conflicts, but this could be used as a precedent for others to justify their actions in times of crisis, even though it might not be used for the common good.
mmm lets see if i was president i probably would have done the same a president lincoln. it was a time of war and he made a big decision. i believe the president should be able to make these kinds of decision because he is the president. we elect a president to lead our country and being the leader he should be able to make swift desicions without congress butting in.
mmm I agree with Robert, he brought up roosevelt and the japenese camps. Even though it wasnt fair for the japenese americans I do believe President Roosevelt made the right desicion. Roosevelt was watching out for our country and did what he thought would help our nation. Again I believe that presidents are able to make swift desicions in time of crisis becasue its the president, we elect the president to make the big desicions and do whats best for our country.
Well... I understand the need for greater good and cant wait for Congress to make decions.. But I don't think a president should be allowed that much power. If we are in a time of crisis, a corrupt president could mislead the public into an unjust war and take power for themself.
I also agree with Dan "Matt"
A president should not be able to arrest innocents with out evidence of there crimes, not suspicions.
I think that a president should be allowed to go around the constitution in a time of war. Without this power our enemies can look at this as a disadvantage and find ways to terrorize us without fear of consequences. Lincoln was justified when he did what he did, without that, we might be the confederate states of America.
For my response, I would have to respectfully disagree with curtis. If we always followed our constitution in a time of war, we could fall apart as a nation and lose all that we ever fought for. By allowing the rules to bend a little when a crisis is happening, our country can remain strong and overcome the enemy.
I have to agree with Leeroy. The president should be allowed to bend around the Constitution in time of war, but not to an extreme. However, here should be a loose limitation to this power, as well or the president might abuse it. If he or she is able to prevent another 9/11 or the strengthening or our enemies, the president should be allowed to make a difficult decision.
I do not believe that a president should be able to bend the constitution. Part of the presidents job is to set an example for the rest of the country and for the future presidents. And IF we allow one president to bend the constitution "in a time of war", how will we justify another president bending it "in a stressful time". It kind of reminds me of the concept of "if you give a mouse a cookie, he'll ask for a glass of milk." In other words, if the president were allowed to bend the constitution "in a time of war", what would stop the next president from bending the constitution "to prevent a war". How much power are we willing to let the president have and by what justification?
If the constitution is set in place,why should one man be able to walk all over it? Our laws are created to keep basic human rights for all who reside as citizens in this country, so why should they not be protected? A president has no right to just pick and choose what laws he must abide by. If it is a crisis such as war, he should have to review it with the supreme court in order to go against our constitution. Abe did what he felt was right, but by doing that went against the constitution. Should I be able to do what I believe is "right" even if it goes against the constitution?
In response to Robin- Why should a president be able to rip Americans out of their own homes on "suspision" of being spies? These were not illegal immigrants coming to spy. These were people who were citizens of the United States. How can you justify putting Americans in camps for not being white? The president must abide by the constitution that he is serving under, or not take the responsibility that comes with it.
While it would be ideal to turn to one man in a time of war and let him carry out what is best for the country no matter what laws he has to bend around to get there, in reality, not all (if any) politicians will always have such good intentions in the forefront. As the saying goes, “Absolute power corrupts, absolutely,” and no matter what the crisis is, if a war will give the government more power over the people, they will seize every opportunity they can take.
When a new dictator takes over a country, he does not simply storm in, burn their Constitutions or laws and say, “I’m in charge, now.” Instead, power is taken away from the people in events like these, where the people are at their most vulnerable, and society is at its most unstable. When Abraham Lincoln revoked Habius Corpu, the detainees had their liberties, which their country was based upon, taken from them without a fair fight.
If a country is defined as a democracy, or run by the people, where does imprisonment without a fair trial by a man with the final say-so fall into the definition? Nowhere. The fact is it was a direct violation against civil liberties and only opened doors for more destruction. And while Kyle said, “If we always followed our constitution in a time of war, we could fall apart as a nation and lose all that we ever fought for,” the truth really is that the discarding of Constitutional rules only results in the weakening of American ideals, not the strengthening of it, no matter how the battle turns out.
Ethan said, “The president should be allowed to bend around the Constitution in time of war, but not to an extreme.” The only problem I find in this is the fact that the only one who gets to decide how far to stray from the Constitution, with this new power, is the President, himself. There is no definition of what is “extreme”, or not, and we are experiencing this idea today, with the introduction of ideas such as the Patriot Act, which can be extremely invasive, and opens doors to further control of the people. I also do not want to bring conspiracies into it, but think of how the President could control the people if the government itself controlled the length of wars, and put more resources in as necessary to keep people in constant fear and therefore control.
While I think it's necessary for a leader in power to not be limited in a time of emergency I agree with Ethan in the idea that there needs to be limits. That's what the constitution should be, the fundamental rights that the president cannot repeal or overlook in a time of war. Anything that seems that it should be able to be stepped over in a time of war should be removed from the constitution and made into a law. I believe the prsidents power needs to be limited or we could end up in a dictatatorship but also needs freedoms so america does not fall apart.
Even though I agrees with and respect the Constitution of the United States, there times when rules or laws need to bend or broken. In this case Abraham made the right decision of prisoning the government which was near to supporting the south. Since the Constitution protects the rights of every person, I believe that a criminal in this case the government should not be protected by them.
I agree with Dex when he explained that the President cannot always wait for Congress to make decisions and it is important for him to step up and show that his the leader of the country.
The president is a very powerful person in the U.S. and controls a lot but no matter what, he did not have the right to violate the constitution in any way.
Also i agree with Dan "Matt" Herrera and what he says
I disagree with you Marco. The president should be able to do that if the country is in mayhem like it was. If he didn't, what would the outcome be?
Abraham Lincoln was justified in what he did, I agree with Melissa. When a country is in falling apart anything should be done in order to keep the country together and unified. Lincoln represented that leader that could take any chance he got in order to help his country, and if breaking the law is necessary then it should be done.
Quote from Dan Matt:I don't think that they can decide when to obey the constitution (not even during war).
I think that his decision was justified, even if it was to break the rules.During those years the nation was in huge problems, i think that he did the right thing, he saved the nation. Even though he went against the constitution, it was a good cause.
Personally i agree with both Katie and Dex. Lincoln needed to take action he couldn't wait for the congress to allow it. I mean,think about it, what would have happened if he had chosen wait for the congress? Although i do believe that the constitution are laws that we should obey but, in times of crisis the president should have right to do whats best for the country.
I think that under most circumstances everyone including the president has to obey the constitution but their are special cases.
A president has to do what he can to save the country and if Abraham Licoln had to disobey the constitution than its understandable because he did it for the best of the U.S. Only on this kind of circumstances(war) and impending doom can the president do what he thinks is best. If he hadnt done that than we may not be the U.S. that we are today.
i agree with edna for Abe Lincon did what he had to do to preserve the union and if that meant imprisoning people that wanted to undermine that goal than so be it. Lincon may not have been following the constitution but he definately did what had to be done to save the united states from falling into a pre-revolutionary goverment system. i believe that Lincon was justified in not following the constitution.
Clay =)
i think that anything is acceptable in a time of crisis. if the president believes the right thing to do would be something that isnt in the constution then thats fine.
Post a Comment