Talk Elections

If yes, please post the part of the Constitution that says the president of the United States is allowed to pass laws without any involvement from Congress whatsoever.

The reason that Lincoln restricted the Proclamation to those states active in the rebellion is that Lincoln felt he could take such unilateral action in those states not currently recognizing the authority of the Union; the loyal Union states had certain rights that a Presidential Proclamation would have no Constitutional power over.

My understanding is that it fell under his powers as comander-in-chief, As a tactical move designed to hurt the enemy. Notice that it did not apply in border states or already conquered areas.

It dealt with "contraband," which was a legal act.  One of the few cases where being "property" was an advantage.

Contraband? Explain.

It is perfectly legal in a war to seize the property of an enemy.   Because of the way the EP was written it only seized enemy property as disposed of it.

Yes. It was an act of war, a proclamation of 'surrender or else', and the president is the commander in chief. So, I suppose it would be constitutional.

Yes, since it was a Presidential Proclamation that applied to only those states in rebellion AGAINST the United States Constitutiion.

And the fact remains no slaves were freed by the EP. It was a (smart) political move to change the issue of the war to slavery and keep the British and French out. If the Brits/French had gotten involved the North would have been toast.

Exactly Statesrights, It didn't free a single slave, but it moved the war to a higher moral plain. And, as you brought up, kept France and Britain off the side of the Confederacy. The Confeds lost foreign recognition without which we wouldn't have won the first American revolution.

They were kept out but the British continued to supply thousands of weapons to the Confederacy as well as several warships. The CSS Alabama was built in Liverpool.

It had little legal strength, but it earned the moral high ground for the yankees.

Thats why in 1869 the Brits had to pay reperations to the United States.

The CSS Alabama sunk more tonnage (for one ship) then any ship in US Naval History.

Oh yes. Raphael Semmes was an amazing naval commander. The Confederates had all the great commanders. Had they had the recources the North had the Civil War would have lasted 90 days.

Yesh.

Actually from all my research their resources were sufficient enough to win the war the major problem was the lack of internal railroads. Many of the tracks weren't even of the same gauge. The north had begun to standardize a gauge by that point in time.

Of course that correct, but you skirt the question.  Was it constitutional?  I say yes it was.  A bit fascist maybe, but not unconstitutional.  As has been pointed out, it was aimed at a small parts of a few states (not even whole states) in rebellion.  Those states obviously didn't recognize the authority of the constitution, so it was no more unconstitutional than, say, if George Bush used the war powers act to mobilize against Al Quaeda, for example.

Answer the question.  Whether the military action against the CSA was legal was another matter, but was the EP illegal?

Would it be legal for the US to create a law banning drugs in Amsterdamn? You can't create laws on other nations and THINK you can enforce them.

When you have a large blue army, you can.

Yes, and that's how they forced their constitutional interpretation. Not throught he courts or congress. By force of bayonet.

And we all remember the South's great legal case for secession.  What was it called again?  Something something vs. Fort Sumter I believe.

They never tried to make a case for the legality of secession and they started the shooting to boot.

fair enough. 

as I said before, I don't think the SC legislature did anything illegal when it seceeded, only when it refused to relinquish US property.  The EP is another matter altogether.  If the US was trying to take over another country, and the UN hadn't been invented yet, then nothing it could do to that other country would really be illegal.  Still, your analogy is a good one, but as has been pointed out, might makes right, so legality is really not that important to history.  Victory is.

US Property such as national parks and forts are given to the government by the states. The Government cant just take whatever land they want. THe states have to give them permission.

So, in your estimation, the move against Fort Sumter was illegal.  Actually, there's a good case to be made that it was, and you have pretty much summed it up.

Then, doesn't it follow that the maintaining Navy bases on Vieques is illegal too, since PR doesn't want it there.  (yes, I'm aware that a portion of the island was ceded to PR by President Bush.  A good move, in my estimation, but what about the rest of it?)

It is not a war with a foreign nation. Just because Virginia declares secession, does not mean the Constituion has actually been nullified inside my State, so president Bush can just take away my house.

That's the whole idea behind the war anyway: that the Union could not be dissolved by action of a State legislature.

It would be legal if you were engaged in rebellion.  That was the key.  It was seen as necessary to end the unconstitutional action.

Complaining about the Emancipation Proclamation not being Constitutional seems to be an argument against strict interpretation more than anything.  Who the hell cares about federalism when we're dealing with the enslavement of millions of our own citizens?

First of all, I'm not for a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but let's pretend I am. How is this an argument against it?

Because you're arguing that the President wouldn't have this Constitutional power to end slavery.  My response is "F*** that, end it anyway."

There isn't anything in there about the president being directly able to do it.

I would guess that his oath "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" might cover it.