Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-30-2013, 04:48 PM
 
26,475 posts, read 15,057,355 times
Reputation: 14626

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Well, of course. The greatest seizure of executive powers happened during the Civil War under Lincoln. After Lincoln, Congress pushed back. Different Presidents, in different situations, have varied in how aggressively they asserted executive powers. George W Bush's administration WAS more aggressive in this aspect than was Clinton or Carter, for instance. While Obama's term is incomplete, I'd say his administration has also been more aggressive in this aspect than Clinton or Carter. But each President faces very different situations. Lincoln was dealing with a Civil War with massive casualties and devastating results for the nation as a whole. George W Bush had to deal with a horrific terrorist attack on US soil. George W Bush's Vice President was particularly aggressive about executive powers and probably one of the more forceful Vice Presidents we've ever had. Each Presidency has to be examined in its own context, but the design of the government is one in which the three branches of the government are in a struggle over power. The design depends on there being tension, because without tension there is no balance. But the balance itself does shift. depending on the personalities involved, depending on the state of the nation, depending on global issues.
Was Lincoln truly a large seizure of executive power?

I always hear how he suspended Habeus Corpus, but I don't think this was a big deal by any means for the following reasons:

#1 Habeus Corpus can legally be suspended, but by congress.
#2 Congress was out of session when the Civil War broke out and in those days it would take a lot of time to get everyone back. Lincoln needed to act quickly.
#3 Lincoln used his standing as Commander in Chief during war time to suspend it.
#4 Lincoln knew this would be controversial and when congress came back to DC he laid out his reasons for doing so and asked congress to vote on it.
#5 Congress passed a resolution saying that Lincoln acted appropriately.
#6 Had Maryland seceded, Washington DC would have been completely surrounded by Confederate States and the war could have been lost.

What is the big deal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-31-2013, 07:58 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,864,851 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
Since the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, all of these are impeachable offenses.

Good thing President Obama has impeachment insurance - Joe Biden.
Um, no.

CRIMES are impeachable offenses. Power plays in the government aren't impeachable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2013, 08:12 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,864,851 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
Was Lincoln truly a large seizure of executive power?

I always hear how he suspended Habeus Corpus, but I don't think this was a big deal by any means for the following reasons:

#1 Habeus Corpus can legally be suspended, but by congress.
#2 Congress was out of session when the Civil War broke out and in those days it would take a lot of time to get everyone back. Lincoln needed to act quickly.
#3 Lincoln used his standing as Commander in Chief during war time to suspend it.
#4 Lincoln knew this would be controversial and when congress came back to DC he laid out his reasons for doing so and asked congress to vote on it.
#5 Congress passed a resolution saying that Lincoln acted appropriately.
#6 Had Maryland seceded, Washington DC would have been completely surrounded by Confederate States and the war could have been lost.

What is the big deal?
#1 Habeus Corpus cannot be unilaterally suspended by the President. To do so is a violation of the Constitution.

#2 This single example ignores the many other assumptions of power that President Lincoln made.

#3 It is a big deal because President Lincoln, in his use of war powers, permanently changed the balance of powers between the three branches of government, while, simultaneously, the Civil War permanently changed the balance of power between the states and the federal government. We entered the Civil War where the states were independent entities joined together for the purpose of national defense and to promote economic growth. After the Civil War, the laws passed by the federal government could and did void laws passed by the states. When Lincoln won his first election, Congress predominantly designed and implemented laws and national policies, when Lincoln won his second election, the Presidency had ascended as the dominant branch of government in formulating national policy.

While Lincoln was in office, our country was transformed. We were no longer THESE United States of America, we became THE United States of America. And while Lincoln was in office, Lincoln used his war powers to transform the federal government that governed THE United States of America. After the war, Congress engaged in a campaign to take some of its powers back, and was successful during some Presidencies, and less than successful during others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2013, 11:18 AM
 
Location: St. Louis
7,444 posts, read 7,012,465 times
Reputation: 4601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones View Post
Your conflating the application of law with constitutionality. An act is either constitutional or not based on ajudication...not feeling or belief.
So you can ignore the Constitution until there has been an adjudication?

Interesting take.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2013, 12:10 PM
 
13,302 posts, read 7,866,287 times
Reputation: 2144
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR View Post
So you can ignore the Constitution until there has been an adjudication?

Interesting take.
Hey, no precedent, no law.

It's the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2013, 12:23 PM
 
Location: texas
9,127 posts, read 7,940,441 times
Reputation: 2385
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR View Post
So you can ignore the Constitution until there has been an adjudication?

Interesting take.
You can ignore the Constitution until challenged. Until challanged, there is no foul.

If I supress your freedom to speak, and you dumbly oblige, it isn't my or the Constiution's fault.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2013, 06:15 PM
 
1,256 posts, read 4,194,686 times
Reputation: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tele-Cat View Post
'Bagger blog.
Yup yup yup.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2014, 06:54 AM
 
26,475 posts, read 15,057,355 times
Reputation: 14626
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
#1 Habeus Corpus cannot be unilaterally suspended by the President. To do so is a violation of the Constitution.
Congress was not in session and could not be in session immediately when a crisis hit.

Congress then reaffirmed Lincoln's actions.

Would you rather the Commander in Chief let the country fall apart?



Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
#2 This single example ignores the many other assumptions of power that President Lincoln made.
Do go on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
#3 It is a big deal because President Lincoln, in his use of war powers, permanently changed the balance of powers between the three branches of government, while, simultaneously, the Civil War permanently changed the balance of power between the states and the federal government. We entered the Civil War where the states were independent entities joined together for the purpose of national defense and to promote economic growth. After the Civil War, the laws passed by the federal government could and did void laws passed by the states. When Lincoln won his first election, Congress predominantly designed and implemented laws and national policies, when Lincoln won his second election, the Presidency had ascended as the dominant branch of government in formulating national policy.

While Lincoln was in office, our country was transformed. We were no longer THESE United States of America, we became THE United States of America. And while Lincoln was in office, Lincoln used his war powers to transform the federal government that governed THE United States of America. After the war, Congress engaged in a campaign to take some of its powers back, and was successful during some Presidencies, and less than successful during others.
Pure Fiction.

Take Jackson for example, "Our Union, it must be preserved." He as other presidents prior to Lincoln forced states to accept Federal will.

The vast majority of presidents BEFORE Lincoln had been strengthening the federal government and presidential power - including Jefferson the State's Rights Poster Boy. Even James Buchanan said that it was illegal to secede.

The presidents after Lincoln until McKinley were typically ones that bent over backwards to not grab too much power. True power to the presidents is more modern era with both Roosevelts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2014, 09:08 AM
 
Location: Massachusetts
10,029 posts, read 8,343,226 times
Reputation: 4212
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusNexus View Post
George Bush LIED to Congress to send thousands of American soldiers to their death, negatively impacting the lives of MILLIONS of families. This, while this country nearly bled to death. So much for the effectiveness of the separation of powers.

Congressional Republicans have abandoned their constitutional duties to undermine two branches of the government (Executive and Legislative) just because a black man runs one of the branches (Executive). Violation extraordinaire.

Thank God for the emergence and two-term presidency of President Obama. The fine job he is/has been doing signifies the beginning of the end of the GOP.
Liberal/Obama Supporter Auto Response Protocolâ„¢

1. The source isn't valid
2. That's racist
3. GOP obstruction

4. But...but...but George W. Bush
5. Haters gonna hate
6. Sour grapes- your guy lost
7. The insurance companies are at fault, Obama didn't lie
8. Repeat 1,2,3,4,5, 6 and/or 7 as needed then insult the opposition for failing to support this great man, declare victory, and move on
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top