Emancipation Proclamation

[A18]

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.

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.

[J. J.]

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.

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.

[Lunar]

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?

[A18]

Complaining about the Emancipation Proclamation not being Constitutional seems to be an argument against strict interpretation more than anything.

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?

[Lunar]

Complaining about the Emancipation Proclamation not being Constitutional seems to be an argument against strict interpretation more than anything.

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."

[J. J.]

Complaining about the Emancipation Proclamation not being Constitutional seems to be an argument against strict interpretation more than anything.

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?

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.