Emancipation Proclamation

[J. J.]

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

[J. J.]

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.

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.

[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.

[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.