---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: War Powers In History From: "Atkinson, Robert" <rca53@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, December 27, 2005 3:04 pm To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave: The January 2006 issue of Smithsonian magazine has an article by Doris Kearns Goodwin about the origins of the Emancipation Proclamation. It is relevant to the current debate over the NSA interceptions as it illustrates how one provision in the Constitution (in this case Art. IV, Sec. 2 which explicitly protected slavery in states that allowed it) was overridden by the President's "war powers" during a time of war. >From the excerpt on the magazine's website http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues06/jan06/lincoln.html : While he [Lincoln] concurred with the most passionate abolitionists that slavery was "a moral, a social and a political wrong," as president, he felt he could not ignore the constitutional protection of the institution where it already existed. Daily reports from the battlefields illuminated the innumerable uses to which slaves were put by the Confederacy. ... Seen in this light, emancipation could be considered a military necessity-a legitimate exercise of the president's constitutional war powers. The slaves held in the loyal border states were not emancipated until the adoption of the 13th Amendment because there was no military justification for doing so. Is President Bush's order to the NSA constitutionally different from President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? I'd be interested in hearing some opinions on that. Bob ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
|
Dave: The January 2006 issue of Smithsonian magazine has an
article by Doris Kearns Goodwin about the origins of the Emancipation
Proclamation. It is relevant to the current debate over the NSA
interceptions as it illustrates how one provision in the Constitution (in this
case Art. IV, Sec. 2 which explicitly protected slavery in states that allowed
it) was overridden by the President’s “war powers” during a
time of war. From the excerpt on the magazine’s website http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues06/jan06/lincoln.html
: While he [Lincoln] concurred with
the most passionate abolitionists that slavery was "a moral, a social and
a political wrong," as president, he felt he could not ignore the
constitutional protection of the institution where it already existed. Daily reports from the battlefields
illuminated the innumerable uses to which slaves were put by the Confederacy. …
Seen in this light, emancipation could be considered a military
necessity—a legitimate exercise of the president's constitutional war
powers. The slaves held in the loyal Is President Bush’s order to the NSA constitutionally different from
President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation? I’d be
interested in hearing some opinions on that. Bob You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ |