Tag: US Constitution

Honorable Rebellion, Honorable Leaders and the Naming of Army Forts

I am sure this title caught your eye. The point is that rebellion is actually GOOD once in a while. Personally, teenage rebellion is good as well, otherwise the teenager stays in one’s basement for decades and no honorable person, parent or child, wants that long term. Allowing and encouraging these young adults to “be all that they can be” is a most honorable path I would think.

Countries and cultures are similar in that there comes a time when going separate ways brings out the best for all parties.

Thomas Jefferson was one that spoke to the benefits of rebellion:

God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.- Thomas Jefferson (1787)

Rebellion is a warning shot that liberties have been violated. This is an honorable recourse when peaceful approaches have been ignored time and again. Liberty can grow in the way that the American Revolution’s conclusion was conducted, not so much how the French Revolution was conducted.

If the 1776 rebellion was honorable, why not the 1860/1861 rebellion? What might help to set the context is to compare the presidential inaugural addresses of both President Lincoln and President Davis.

Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural Address 04MAR1861

Lincoln made the strongest case ever in the defense of Southern slavery even supporting its enshrinement in the text of the constitution to be a perpetual right but on the issue of tax collections he would definitely go to war to enforce the newly doubled federal tariff.

Davis defined the South as an international trading community that sought free trade with the world and promised to resort to the sword if the North were to invade to put an end to the Confederacy’s free trade policy.

Davis also set the context for the formation of an agent to work on the principle’s (13 sovereign states) behalf when he said:

The declared purpose of the compact of the Union from which we have withdrawn was “to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

He continued on why the seven states had voted to leave such a Union:

When in the judgement of the sovereign states now composing this Confederacy, it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and it ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, a peaceful appeal to the ballot box declared that so far as they were concerned, the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right that the Declaration of Independence of 1776 had defined to be inalienable .. they, as sovereigns, were the final judges, each for itself ..

What few people know is that this man was so honorable and such a Unionist up until his home state of Mississippi seceded, that his logic, actions and words were honorable to their core.

So what do we do with men like this after a War for Southern Independence is fought and lost? We honor honorable men of that day by naming military forts after them, even when they in the end were not victorious in securing an independent country against a country who secured a victory in less than honorable means.

Walter E. Williams addresses this in his article at Lew Rockwell today. He lays the groundwork as to why we have forts in the US today that bear the name of honorable Confederate generals who were fighting for their homes and families against a tyrant who violated the US Constitution left and right.

Walter addresses a statement made by an ignorant military man, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, who said in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee arguing in favor of renaming Confederate named military bases:

The Confederacy, the American Civil War, was fought, and it was an act of rebellion. It was an act of treason, at the time, against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution.

Ignorance knows no bounds, as I pointed out yesterday that Lincoln himself was the one that acted treasonous and also acted violently against the US Constitution. The Southern state’s secession was NOT an act of treason, even if your feelings and emotions convince you and Gen. Mark Milley that way. He needs to find a safe space, and by renaming these forts I do hope he feels better soon.

But I digress ..

Walter E. Williams starts with context of the union in the first place:

Let’s start at the beginning, namely the American War of Independence (1775-1783), a war between Great Britain and its 13 colonies, which declared independence in July 1776. The peace agreement that ended the war is known as the Treaty of Paris signed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Jay and Henry Laurens and by British Commissioner Richard Oswald, on Sept. 3, 1783. Article I of the Treaty held that “New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States.”

This fact is something that Lincoln himself ignored to retain his narrative that the “Union” preceded the states, which then dovetails into his own personal thought that the states should have asked permission of all the other states before leaving.

Walter continues:

Delegates from these states met in Philadelphia in 1787 to form a union. During the Philadelphia convention, a proposal was made to permit the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, rejected it. Minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: “A union of the states containing such an ingredient (would) provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

The fact that Lincoln never acknowledged the states as having seceded, left him with the complicated aspect that he actually violated the principle above, that his making war on states still in the union meant the compact was in fact dissolved. He wanted to ask for the “divorce”, he did NOT want the spouse(s) to have that status!

With this thought, that each of the sovereign states would voluntarily join this union one at a time, each state also understood that they each could voluntarily leave this union.

During the ratification debates, Virginia’s delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments; namely, they held the right to dissolve their relationship with the United States.

Note that northern states also expressed interest in the ability to exit. Only 16 years later, there was talk of that from that section of the federation:

Many New Englanders were infuriated by President Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which they saw as an unconstitutional act. Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who was George Washington’s secretary of war and secretary of state, led the movement. He said, “The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government.” Other prominent Americans such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III and Joseph Story shared his call for secession.

Sparking secession talk again was the War of 1812 that hurt the New England commerce the most, rekindling this viable option:

While the New England secessionist movement was strong, it failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.

By early 1861, many Northern government officials and presses were well aware of the dangers of not allowing an honorable rebellion to take place and voiced such before Lincoln took action to send armed reinforcements to Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor:

  • Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty.”
  • New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.”
  • The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent.”
  • The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”

Walter summarizes this so well in saying:

Confederate generals fought for independence from the Union just as George Washington fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who label Robert E. Lee and other Confederate generals as traitors might also label George Washington a traitor. Great Britain’s King George III and the British parliament would have agreed.

Spot on Walter, you rock as an 80-something!

Named for Confederate General Braxton Bragg, who had previously served in the United States Army in the Mexican-American War.

Should the ten forts named after Confederate officers be renamed? No. But it seems that stupid people with a lot of feelings now rule. While the name of a fort does not do anything physically, it is a part of the culture cleansing going of to remove whatever is left of this country’s honorable past.

In my mind, the past was already being erased a little at a time over the last 100+ years. I think it is the shear momentum of this now that has many feeling that it is over the top and openly wondering when if ever will it stop.

Honestly, can we start talking secession now, or is it too early yet? Asking for a friend.

Peace out.

-SF1

Will President Trump Refrain from Total War Against Some States, Unlike Lincoln?

A couple posts ago I lamented about the GOP’s DNA from the birth of that political party that Lincoln was elected under:

.. in 2020, the Trump administration would never concede to have GOP majority states secede from the US and allow the Democrats to have the empire. The GOP’s DNA is war and empire.

However, could the Trump administration stray from their DNA (I mean with politicians, “principles” are easily discarded)? Could the GOP part with large sections of California, New York and New England? Could the city-states of Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Cincinnati (along with other Democratic majority cities in various states) be allowed to go on their own and pay their own way?

This is a real question. No one, I mean no one brings this up because supposedly states can’t secede, but I really think it is because BOTH parties are Marxist at their core.

Lincoln was adored by Karl Marx, and the Progressives since 1901 have been in control of this country’s leadership and cemented the deal in 1913 with Constitutional amendment to place the private entity the Federal Reserve in charge of the fiat currency (USD).

While I really doubt any politician these days thinks philosophically, the statesmen of yesterday did. It was important for the likes of Jefferson, Calhoun and even Jefferson Davis to get it right, based on principle.

While the Constitution is not in the forefront of 2020’s political debates between Twitter Trump and Dementia Joe, the statesmen of 1861 saw it all clear as day. I would say that the following is why the southern seven states that seceded were so confident of a peaceful separation, because in their mind their ancestors did the same in 1776.

Article 3 Section 3 of the US Constitution defines treason as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or to adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

The words THEM and THEIR refer to who? Well, the truth is the first time the “United States” was written it was the “united States”. That is why it is plural, a collection, a federation, a confederacy of states. So levying “War” against them was about going to war with Massachusetts or Virginia, or any other state!

Technically then, there is NO treason except that against the individual states themselves according to the US Constitution. Opposition to Washington DC is NOT therefore treason! Nor is defending your own state from Washington DC.

Let that soak in before I proceed. Doesn’t this all have a connection to 2020?

Now look at 1861 from this Constitutional perspective and we see that Lincoln made war, not just on the seven states that left the union by FEB1861, but also against the four others that left after Lincoln called up volunteers in APR1861 after Fort Sumter’s surrender. Lincoln is guilty of treason, but don’t expect the US history books to state that fact.

In essence, Lincoln engaged in treason for four years and redefined treason, not by a constitutional amendment, but with cannon and rifles. Treason became to include anyone who was critical of the US general government or himself. As a result he suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had his soldiers arrest and imprison thousands of northern civilians for speaking up against him in public, for publishing newspaper articles in opposition to his policies.  Lincoln had congressmen arrested, arrested the grandson of the author of the Star Spangled Banner, Francis Scott Key and also had a congressman from Ohio deported to Canada. Lincoln even arrested those who chose to remain silent when hearing Lincoln’s policies discussed!

The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered, he is sure to help the enemy, much more if he talks ambiguously – talks for his country with “buts” and “ifs” and “ands”. – Abraham Lincoln

The bottom line is that Lincoln never publicly admitted that secession of any state took place and placed his trust in Article 4 Section 4 of the US Constitution that allows the federal government to protect the citizens of any state from “domestic Violence”.  However, the Constitution couches this in first receiving a request to do so from that state’s legislature or governor. The southern eleven states NEVER asked for assistance with “domestic violence”.

Lincoln is a certified tyrant guilty of treason.

How tempting it must be for President Trump, in command of the American Empire’s military might, to only bring a fraction of that force “for good” against any state that is currently dealing with domestic violence.

If he is wiser that Lincoln, he would have followed the US Constitution and waited until asked.

Will Trump pull a full-on Lincoln? Time will tell.

Peace out.

-SF1

When Does a Tyrant Come Out of the Closet? When a Crisis Hits!

These days as Americans are bombarded with the names Whitmer (MI), Cuomo (NY) and Newsom (CA) leading the charge for born-again tyrants, we probably should look into history to see who might have modeled this best. Being confronted with a crisis reveals the true character of most people, and when these people are politicians, the resulting decisions in the reaction to times of crisis “try men’s souls”.

In my last post I said:

The GOP is stuck because the DNA in their party rests with Abraham Lincoln and his reaction to having seven states PEACEFULLY secede from the united States of America (written as it was inked in the 1783 Paris Peace treaty with the British Empire).

I bet you can guess who I am going to pick on once again. Yes, that president we all know and love from our grade school days, Honest Abe.

We also know from our last post that Lincoln’s reaction to these states leaving the union was NOT to free the slaves, no way, no how. He actually said on 04MAR1861:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

So after Lincoln tried to “resupply” Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor with TROOPS which triggered, no pun intended, the Confederate forces to pro-actively open the cannons on that fort to force its surrender, with ZERO deaths, Lincoln proceeded to accomplish a long list of decisions the cemented his inner tyrant behavior.

While the calling up of 75,000 volunteers from the remaining states in the union after the surrender of Fort Sumter was based on a 1795 act of Congress that gave the president to call up troops in case of insurrection, this act only allowed 30 days until the president’s authority would cease. Lincoln would milk this for FOUR months before Congress was called into session! Not only that, to add insult to injury, he asked Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas and Missouri to send troops to fight against their culturally “sister” states as well.

The letters from the governors of these states is hilarious, the best first line of the response from Tennessee is priceless:

Your dispatch is received, and if genuine, which its extraordinary character leads me to doubt .. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of this country, and to this war on the liberties of a free people ..

What they did not know was this was only the beginning of the reveal show that Lincoln would unfold in 1861. By 21APR1861 he ordered the blockade of southern ports (an act of war) and the purchase of five naval warships, without congressional approval. On 27APR1861 he suspended the privilege of Habeas Corpus nullifying every civil liberty of every citizen.

On 03MAY1861 Lincoln called up even more troops, this time for a three year enlistment! He also directed the Treasury Department to pay a private firm in New York state $2.0M for military equipment and by 04JUL1861 when Congress was finally called into session, war plans to invade the southern 11 states were already made.

If this were not bad enough, the night of 12SEP1861 he had Maj. Gen. Banks arrest all the Southern sympathizers of the Maryland legislature, 51 citizens in all, to prevent them from voting on secession.

Then, in NOV1861, to ensure southern sympathizers would not vote in Maryland, armed Union troops with bayonets guarded the polling places AND all the Union troops got to vote, even if they were not residents of Maryland.

In Britain, London’s Saturday Review commented:

It was a perfect act of despotism as can be conceived. It was a coup d’etat in every essential feature.

Any Northern press that criticized this the same way was shutdown:

  • Chicago Daily Times
  • The Journal of Commerce (NYC)
  • The Morning News (NYC)
  • The Day-Book
  • The New York World
  • The Freeman’s Journal (Catholic NYC)
  • Philadelphia Evening Journal
  • Christian Observer
  • Republican Watchman (PA)
  • Farmer (ME)
  • Democrat (NH)

Not only were these and another 1,000 newspapers were shutdown, the people involved (up to 10,000) were imprisoned without trial. Newspapers not shutdown were highly regulated throughout the war and censored.

This is only the beginning as Lincoln attempted to have the Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney who had ruled against Lincoln, in the case of Ex Parte Merryman (1861), arrested!.

Talk about the poster child for tyranny. Lincoln is the master.

So look at a picture of your governor or your president or possible next president and know what our US Constitution (and the state constitutions modeled after it) will allow in times of crisis.

I think we are about to see a “Lincoln redux” in action soon all across our land. 1861 was not an easy time to live through in many parts of this country!

Gov. Whitmer – Michigan

 

 

Gov. Cuomo – New York
Gov. Newsom – California
President Donald J. Trump – United States of America
Joe Biden – Possible Future President of the United States

Peace out.

-SF1

Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Unemployment Checks – The “Union/Empire” Wanes

Confederate Constitution acknowledging God!

After a month away from this blog, I looked back at my last thoughts on this attempt by politics to hijack this virus scare:

Will our existing political class figure this out? Not a chance.

Will voting help? Not a chance.

The US still has the USPS and Amtrak, if they can be trusted with little things, you can safely say they can’t be trusted with MAJOR things.

This nation will have to split into many smaller republics before any of this can be addressed.

Whoever can be trusted with small things can also be trusted with big things. Whoever is dishonest in little things will be dishonest in big things too. – Luke 16:10 (Bible)

Is there any doubt by those that can critically think that our political apparatus from DC to the state’s governors and to the large (and small) city mayors are not full of want-to-be tyrants and sociopaths? When one follows the money, it gets even more immoral as the political class (BOTH sides of the so-called aisle) want to be re-elected so bad that they were all willing to place a big old pacifier in the mouths of millions of let go workers so that 65% or more would receive more weekly income than they had prior to this crisis. This is indeed immoral since to entice people to sit on their couches in their homes in time will lead to lives without any purpose. Life on the government plantation has ruined other cultures like the American Indian and the African American groups in the USA. This is how you emasculate the male population towards a purposeless life as government becomes both nanny and daddy.

But I digress. We should be in better position today to see the federal and state governments for what they really are. This “union” has been poisoned for some time. In fits and starts one can see how the federal government opted to be the “safety net”, like somehow a “neutral” entity could care for our communities and societies better than the locals could. That this safety net could extend to big business so that there was no risk in forgoing savings and instead buy back stock shares to prop up the stock prices. So whether this is individual or corporate welfare, both are immoral as one robs some people of their money and uses it to its own agenda’s purpose picking winners and losers in the marketplace as well as in towns and cities and farms across this land.

The southern states endured the reallocation of their taxed and tariff-ed economies from at least the War of 1812 up until the so-called Civil War (War Against Southern Independence). The South attempted to be “above-board” with their last ditch effort to save themselves from economic ruin by legally seceding (at first only 7 states) from this “union” (marriage). But Lincoln would not have his cash cow as a next-door free-trade zone, so he labeled it an “insurrection” and used George Washington’s illegal put down of the Whiskey Rebellion (25% tax thanks to Alexander Hamilton, so how bad was King George for wanting 3%?) as a template for saving the union.

This HAS to sound familiar right? The whole US government (in parallel to so many other governments) is trying to “save” us from Covid-19 while actually killing society and communities in the process. From 1861-1865 the “union” lost about 800,000 lives. What will the final death count be for the Covid-19 response by 2024 when the unintended consequences of good intentions has run its course with suicides, PTSD, mental health issues from the economic fallout AFTER the unemployment checks run out (now slated for 31JUL2020 but many want this extended to 31DEC2020)?

Smaller republics are the only answer that makes sense. Not existing state lines, although that would be a start, but republics that have like-minded people geographically grouped so that government reach can be minimized for liberty folks and maximized for totalitarian minded folks.

Reflecting on the course of what the southern states sailed can be very helpful. Sure they were not perfect and should have jettisoned chattel slavery at the very start (although this would have upset both white and black slaveholders) and compensating these owners with hard currency.

Consider what the Confederate government learned in the 80 years under the US Constitution.

  1. That unlike the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation which BOTH had God, our Creator, as whom we derived our natural rights from, the US Constitution written in 1787 failed to give such indication as its North Star
  2. That the US Constitution failed to protect the people from the 1798 Alien and Sedition Act that made it a crime to criticize the US Government.
  3. That the US Constitution failed to protect various regions of the land from the plundering ambitions of other region’s agenda and greed.
  4. That the US Constitution’s Supreme Court hijacked the ability of the states to determine which laws were unconstitutional.

It is the last point that is highlighted in this article from Abbeville Institite here. I do think it is the proper time to consider what real justice is these days and know how much a failure this a-political Supreme Court has been.

Although the Court would increasingly try to narrow the realm of States Rights, Madison [author of the US Constitution] denied that “the Federal judiciary” was the ultimate judge of such limits because it was the people of the states themselves who were the final authority.

It was in fact the US Government’s (called General government in those days, now labeled the Federal Government) over-reach that set-off a push back politically:

The conflict became obvious when President John Adams pushed through the 1798 Sedition Act, making it a crime to speak ill of the President or Congress. Since it was harshly enforced for some of the mildest criticisms, strict constructionists respond. Among them was future President James Madison who is known as the Father of the Constitution. He denied that the Supreme Court was the ultimate authority on States Rights. This can be seen from the 1798 Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions he helped write with Thomas Jefferson condemning the Sedition Act as unconstitutional.

Jefferson’s presidential victory in 1800 guaranteed that the 1798 Alien and Sedition Act would be eliminated, but by 1833 things were simmering again. By this stage of the republic’s life the South was losing its position as being a strong entity within this federation and saw New England culture and character make huge inroads into the federal government’s choosing of winners (railroads, canals and the steel industry) over losers in the marketplace:

Calhoun would build upon the Resolutions to formulate his nullification theory that South Carolina invoked in 1833 to nullify the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. Calhoun argued that the tariff was not uniform in terms of geographic economic impact and therefore unconstitutional. When the Federal Government crossed over constitutional lines, a state could take action as the final authority of constitutionality in its borders, not the Supreme Court. All states could only be forced to conform to such a law by passing a new amendment specifically making it constitutional.

This “one-size-fits-all” approach (sound familiar?) is a recipe for disaster, for just as all individuals are different, so too are the states.

The Supreme Court early on made a huge mistake that made it necessary to add an 11th amendment in 1795 when the US Constitution was less than ten years old:

When a 1793 Supreme Court ruling held the state of Georgia at fault in a suit brought by a South Carolina resident, Georgia denied the Court’s jurisdiction. After the adverse ruling ten other states joined Georgia to ratify a new (11th) Amendment specifying that individuals outside an applicable state could not sue that state without the state’s permission. The Amendment’s prompt ratification indicates a widespread belief that the Court was unexpectedly and quickly overstepping its authority.

Now you know why the Confederate government opted NOT to have a supreme court at least initially. Lesson learned.

Now it is our turn to learn from history and push for a government that is more commensurate to the people’s desire of liberty, freedom and self responsibility .. at least in certain geographical regions of this land we call America.

Peace out.

-SF1

Is Trump To Follow in Lincoln’s Footsteps? – Stay Tuned!

The Articles of Confederation, which had the word “perpetual” in it, was cast aside in replacing it with the US Constitution in 1787. Prophetic Patrick Henry said:

I smell a rat.

Yes, and with that move the United States began a constant assault on the personal liberties and freedoms the Declaration of Independence declared.

While George Washington himself allowed crisis to over-rule the Law of the Land (i.e. US Constitution), no one did it in a bigger way (to date) than Abraham Lincoln. All it took was for the state of Virginia to change its mind on secession after Lincoln decided to call up 75,000 volunteer troops to “suppress the rebellion” (actually, the peaceful departure of seven southern states of the Deep South). Washington DC was then faced, literally, with a land now belonging to the Confederate States of America across the Potomac River. In response to this development, the thought of Maryland also seceding had Lincoln and his cabinet in panic from consequences of THEIR OWN actions. Potential peace negotiators had attempted to meet with Lincoln and his leadership all during March 1861 but Lincoln refused that peace could be a viable option, for the “union”. He simply would not settle for a divorce from seven states that had been abused by the union for decades, and decided to get that spouse “back in the trailer”.

Can we do something different than Lincoln’s violent response to a divided country where at the end of Lincoln’s war, 2.5% of the population perished? (750,000 by 1865, 7 million in 2020) I highly doubt President Trump would allow the following to happen .. to allow the regions to heal better from the current ECONOMIC crisis disguised as a health crisis:

.. we will see. I think he is pure Lincoln material unfortunately.

Back to Lincoln and what he faced in late April 1861 .. James Dueholm paints the picture in this article:

27April 1861:

Lincoln issued an order to General Winfield Scott authorizing him to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, at or near any military line between Philadelphia and Washington if the public safety required it.  Lincoln issued his order pursuant to the provision in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution stating that “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion and invasion the public safety may require it,”

A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another’s imprisonment.

Laurence M. Vance explains:

The origins of what Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase called “the most important human right in the Constitution … the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom,” go back to the Magna Carta: “No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised [seized] or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land” (Magna Carta, sec. 39). The English Petition of Right (1628) and Habeas Corpus Act (1679), as well as our own Constitution and The Judiciary Act of 1789 (which established the detailed organization of the federal judiciary), all mention this “fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action” (Justice Abe Fortas).

One problem with the way Lincoln pulled this off, it was Congress that was supposed to do this, and Congress would not be called into session until 04JUL1861 by Lincoln!

Lincoln had decided on 15APR1861 to delay calling Congress to order until the 4th of July so that the war on the insurrection could already have gained enough momentum and that the official narrative could have taken hold in the hearts and minds of the people in the north and west (Midwest) United States.

25May1861:

On May 25, federal troops arrested John Merryman in Cockeysville, Maryland, for recruiting, training, and leading a drill company for Confederate service. Merryman’s lawyer promptly petitioned Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, sitting as a trial judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. This writ, sometimes called the Great Writ, is a judicial writ addressed to a jailer ordering him to come to court with his prisoner and explain why the prisoner is being held.

Following a hearing in the matter, Taney ordered delivery of a writ of habeas corpus to General George Cadwallader directing him to appear before Taney on May 28 with Merryman in tow. After Cadwallader refused service of the writ, Taney ruled on May 28 that the president did not have the power to suspend the writ, and Taney announced that he later would issue an opinion in support of his ruling.

Several days later, Taney issued his opinion. Only Congress, he said, could suspend the writ of habeas corpus. He observed that the limitation on suspension of the writ appeared in Article I of the Constitution, dealing with legislative powers, not in Article II, which established executive power. He explored the history of the writ of habeas corpus under English law, showing that the House of Commons had limited and then abolished the royal power to suspend the writ, leaving suspension in legislative hands. The Constitution, he said, embodied this English tradition. Article II, he asserted, gave the president very limited powers that were weakened further by the Bill of Rights. Finally, he cited eminent authority, noting that Chief Justice John Marshall, Thomas Jefferson, and Joseph Story, a luminary as both judge and scholar, had all acknowledged that the power to suspend was a congressional power.

Lincoln’s reaction, in October of 1861 Lincoln ordered the District of Columbia Provost Marshal to place armed sentries around the home of a Washington, D.C. Circuit Court judge and place him under house arrest. The reason was that the judge had issued a writ of habeas corpus to a young man being detained by the Provost Marshal, allowing the man to have due process. By placing the judge under house arrest Lincoln prevented the judge from attending the hearing of the case.

Chief Justice Taney

After the fact, in 1863, Congress finally caught up with Lincoln’s violation of the Constitution and covered for their dictator:

Congress did not enact legislation authorizing suspension of habeas corpus until March 3, 1863. In the meantime, Lincoln’s 1861 orders authorizing suspension remained in force, and on September 24, 1862, he issued a proclamation imposing martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. The proclamation orders that, for the rest of the war, (i) “all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid or comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by courts martial or military commission,” and (ii) “the writ of habeas corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested or imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority or by the sentence of any court martial or military commission.”

Lincoln’s response to an obedient Congress:

“You ask … whether I really claim that I may override all the guarantied rights of individuals, on the plea of conserving the public safety—when I may choose to say the public safety requires it. This question, divested of the phraseology calculated to represent me as struggling for an arbitrary personal prerogative, is either simply a question who shall decide, or an affirmation that nobody shall decide, what the public safety does require, in cases of rebellion or invasion. The constitution contemplates the question as likely to occur for decision, but it does not expressly declare who is to decide it. By necessary implication, when rebellion or invasion comes, the decision is to be made, from time to time; and I think the man whom, for the time, the people have, under the constitution, made the commander-in-chief, of their Army and Navy, is the man who holds the power….”

So this arrogant and pompous President, actually, a dictator at this point, said “public safety” in the middle of this crisis mandated that SOMEONE decides to remove the writ of habeas corpus.

Can you see Trump saying this? Yes you can! If you are honest with yourself.

Think about it.

Stay tuned!

-SF1