Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Lincoln and the Constitution
During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln took actions such as increasing the size of the army without Congressional consent and throwing those who opposed or protested the war (notably the Maryland legislature) into prison without being brought up on charges (writ of habeus corpus). Lincoln claimed that he needed to take these "emergency" actions to preserve the union while others claimed that Lincoln made a mockery of the Constitution. Your question is this: Does the President have the right, during times of national crisis or emergency, to ignore the Constitution? For more background, research "Clement Vallandigham".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that the president shouldn't have the right in an emergency. They wrote the constitution for a reason and we have followed it for over the passed 200 years. Lincoln had no right to throw those that opposed his war into the slammer. They just like every one else in the world should of had a trial. They would be outraged if other branches of the government were to skip over what the president had to say and just sis it.
ReplyDeleteIn times of emergency, the president has the right to ignore the constitution. Was Lincoln's situation an emergency? Perhaps not, but the president was elected to lead the country, was he not? If a modern day crisis occurred and the man elected to lead our country just sat on his butt because a piece of paper written hundreds of years ago forbade him to do what is right, many people would be upset. Keep in mind, I am not speaking of Lincoln's specific situation. The key word here is emergency. An emergency, as I am interpreting it, is an event that endangers the lives or well-being of American citizens. The president must be competent enough to realize what an emergency is and act accordingly. If he proves not to be, then we are all out of luck because the man elected to lead our country cannot overpower the aforementioned piece of paper. A leader can step up and go above and beyond for his cause, and sometimes laws must be broken for the greater good. So my answer is yes, the president has the right to ignore the constitution in times of national crisis and emergency, but only if he does not abuse said right.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I believe that the president has the right to ignore the constitution in a time of emergency because many lives might be at stake and it might be a matter of national security. Was Lincoln's action right?? Maybe not but he knew what was best for the country and at that time that was the best solution there was. As the leader of the nation, it was his responsibility to keep the nation from falling apart. However what he did is unconstitutional because many men were imprisoned for opposing the war rather than trialed and convicted like an ordinary American citizen. But ultimately I think the president should make these decisions at a time of crisis because it will benefit us some how in the long run.
ReplyDeleteIf the president didn't have the power to take emergency during times of crisis and war, what would the president be good for? Without being able to use the power during a war for what he sees fit, serious crisis could happen.
ReplyDeleteThe president needs to be able to look after the safety of his country by whatever means he sees fit, as long as he is able to deal with the criticisms and controversy of his actions. I would rather be alive and in a free country to argue about the president stepping on the Constitution than for there not to be a country at all because our president sit back and watched his country fall.
Chelsey, Lincoln didn't throw those opposing the war into prison, he arrested officers that were contemplating breaking away from the Union not to stop the war, but to keep the country together. There is no use for a Constitution if there is no country, and Lincoln used his power so that the country would survive the war.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution is revered for the clause, "innocent until proven guilty."
ReplyDeleteYet there is no denying that the Union would have been devastated had the Maryland legislature seceded, robbing President Lincoln of a crucial buffer zone against the Confederacy. Civil War opponents hindered the Union, and Lincoln could not afford to depend on the permission of Congress to adequately support the Union Army.
To put it simply, morality isn't black and white. There are gray areas in life that the Constitution fails to account for. Is it immoral that Lincoln imprisoned these men without due arraignment and disregarded the authority of Congress? Absolutely. Did he make a mockery of the Constitution? Of course he did. But even so, had Lincoln not violated the Constitution, the Union would have perished.
So yes, a president does have the right to violate the Constitution in times of emergency and national crisis, for if the failure to do so results in the death of the country, then the Constitution has nothing left to stand for.
Lincoln had the right to throw the Maryland legislator in prison without charges in order to preserve Union. Yes, what Lincoln did was unconstitutional, but without the imprisonment, the Union most likely would have fallen apart. But there comes the big question. What is considered an emergency and should the present be able to ignore the constitution in a time of need. I think that the president should be able to do this in order to preserve the country. However, if he uses it simply for his own advantage, then it truly unconstitutional and he should be impeached.
ReplyDeleteI believe Abraham Lincoln did the right thing by taking action in an emergency situation. The South was on the verge of secession and that would have ruined the United States that we know today. Clement Vallandigham thought that Lincoln should just let the South secede rather than having a long and bloody war to keep them in the Union. Who knows how that might have changed history. The president should be able to make these decisions in times of emergencies because he was elected to lead our country and should know what is best for it. In times of calamity the Constitution might not have the correct guidelines for what needs to be done and if the president has to break rules to do what's right for the country everyone shouldn’t freak out.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, in the case of Lincoln, the ideal for success in the Civil War probably gives him reason to completely ignore the Constitution because it benefitted the country as a whole.
ReplyDelete...Or maybe it just benefitted the Union but I won't go there.
Anyways, Lincoln might have been the exception but (and there always is a "but") can we say, or rather do we KNOW, whether the Union would have failed had Lincoln not did what he did?
Would surrounding the nation's capital really have led to absolute failure and the destruction of the United States forever?!
I'm not a war specialist, but come on...
experiencing first hand abuse of the government (and here I mean Americans being abused by England) and just striving for a government that would be fair and equal (which it wasn't but let's give the founding fathers SOME credit), should make a person practically worship the constitution they so longly worked for.
I mean, obviously this example isn't the first time the Constitution was blowed off (AHEM AHEM BUSH, haha just kidding) and although some people warrant that this defiance to human rights was necessary because, "what's the point of a constitution if there is no country to constitute?" we in turn can say, "what's the point of a constitution if someone can pick and choose what laws they want to follow?"
We can go on and on and ON about this with valid points but in the end I will always come to the conclusion that there are BETTER ways to get what you want. Even Abraham Lincoln would have known better.
Can you say, hypocrisy?
Why emphasize the importance of following the law if you're just going to turn around and go against it?
Under no circumstances (not even the salvation of the country as a whole) should the Constitution be cast aside. Lincoln most definitely could have done something else to assure success. I MEAN SERIOUSLY, IT'S ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
Did Lincoln do the smart thing? Probably.
Did he do the right thing? As much I thank you Abraham Lincoln wherever you are, my answer is still no.
Lincoln had every right to violate the Constitution because he felt that it was necessary for the country to survive. Though the Constitution was created in order to preserve rights, without Lincoln's unconstitutional actions the Union could have been defeated and then what would the United States be like today? Even though Lincoln went against the Constitution, he had the country's best interest in mind.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Lincoln made the right decision when puting the Maryland legislator in jail. As a president he had the right to. Morally it was wrong, but Lincoln was not thinking about if this act was wrong or not, he was thinking about the future of America. His decision was wise, and with that said, a president should have the right to ignore the constitution in the time of crisis. This should not be questionable because a president is elected by the people. Also, while looking at the constitution, it does not provide the answer to every problem a president faces.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Chelsey Schaff,
ReplyDeleteIt probably would have helped Lincoln's case if there was actually a reason for them get thrown in the slammer. In that point, a trial would have been sufficient enough if it lasted a long enough time to make sure the capital wasn't surrounded.
Otherwise without a real reason to get arrested, a trial is totally unbefitting.
Right?
:)
In response to Courtney,
ReplyDeleteI just have one thing to say, the president should be competent enough to find a solution that doesn't make everything he believes in a lie.
At least, that's what I think.
I disagree with Chelsey. Lincoln did have the ability to place the Maryland Legislature in jail, and he used it. If he had not, Maryland would have seceded and the Union would have been open to attack.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Marissa. The people that vote for the president should have confidence in what he is doing. As for those who did not vote for the president, they should have trust that the president will do his job and put the future of the country first.
ReplyDeleteDuring times of emergency, the President of the United States has the right to ignore the Constitution in order to preserve the nation's best interests, or in a much more literal sense, to save the nation itself. Without this ability our country wouldn't of survived the Civil War as well as several other crisises that have plagued the United States. While I stand firmly behind my belief, the only lingering thought is the definition of 'emergency' -or 'crisis' for that matter- and who gets to decide what falls into those categories. Unfortunately there is a vast difference in views from citizen to citizen of what is relevent or considered a national threat. I acknowledge this fault in the system of government, yet I'd much rather have a country that one day high school students can look back and scrutinize rather than not having a country at all.
ReplyDelete@Chelsey Schaff - Firstly I'd like to point out that the only reason we've had a country for the past 200 years is because we HAVEN'T followed the constitution. The Constitution is an excellent document and I would never argue against that, it was an amazing structure and set of system that this country still runs on. But in times of crisis, the Constitution is only nice in theory. While the Founding Fathers foresaw the country adapting and growing, I can guarantee you they could never envision jets with the capabilities to take out cities in the blink of an eye. The facts are that threats move extremely fast while Congress is notoriously slow. The agruement has been made that we must hold true to our morals - especially in a time of crisis - yet that is extremely selfish, unrealistic and childlike. "Principle is okay up to a certain point, but principle doesn't do any good if you lose." - Dick Cheney
ReplyDeletePart 13: Reunited
ReplyDeleteBefore I dive headfirst into the topic at hand, I'd like to welcome all of you back. It's been quite some time, as I'm sure all of you are aware, too much time, and I find it worth comment. However, the pleasantries cannot last, nor shall they. So ladies, gentlemen...
BAYONETTES!!!
Part 14: It's for your own good.
ReplyDeleteI've seen that a majority of you have taken a road I previously believed less traveled. I thought it clear that most of you would disagree with constitutional neglect, seeing the clear corruption and abuse it may, no, will lead to. So, I have a single thing to say.
Freedoms are lost in times of emergency.
Give someone an inch, and they'll move two. Mr. Max has said it. What use is a constitution if you can choose when to abide by its laws?- to which I add, what use is a constitution in times of emergency? Sir, madam, I ask you; what is an emergency? You have an answer? Oh, it's anytime the well-being of Americans are threatened? Well guess what? I don't care about your definition of emergency in this situation, and it doesn't matter the least bit what you believe. Do you know why?
Because the president's definition is the only one that matters. That's right, if you permit any single person the ability to act against the constitution in "a time of emergency", you are also giving them the right to determine its definition. You are giving them the right to interpret the causes and the right to decide on the outcome.
Don't even give me that "checks and balances" bull, because that only works when the constitution is respected. When Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, did checks and balances stop them? No. When the court's ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson lead to the legalization of the Jim Crow laws, did checks and balances stop them? No. When Abraham Lincoln ordered for the arrest of the Maryland legislature and denied them writ of habeus corpus, did checks and balances stop him? No, they did not.
Mark my words, the day we lose our rights is the day our leaders will declare a national crisis.
@Snowdump, I'd thrilled to see you're passionate with your views! I'm sorry to say that I agree with you, you are not a war specialist. But being as kind as I am I'll try and break it down for you:
ReplyDelete1. Maryland secedes
2. Washington D.C. is surrounded by Confederacy
3. Washington D.C. can't receive support lines; infantry, food, etc.
4. Game Over :)
You value your morals and I think that's adorable, but at the bottom of every person - deep past all the civilized fluff - is a genetic code for survival at all cost. If you are unable to at least recognize that fact and acknowledge it, I fear you've taken for granted the securities this nation has given you, a nation that still stands for YOU because it sheds morals when threatened with extinction. I respect your thoughts, but I find them hard to swallow, and if you do hold true to your morals til the end I hope Darwin is not lost on you.
Part 15: The Snowball Effect
ReplyDeleteIt's times like this I am reminded why I'm a lone wolf, a single beast traveling solo across the arctic plains of better reason. I just read Snowdump's opinion on the matter and, to put it quite plainly, she just took a *turd* on my argument. Inadvertently of course, but now my side of the debate stinks.
That's right missy, you and your emoticons are dragging me down, and we're not even associated. You're no military strategist, and you're no English major either. You have about as much tact as a drunken midget driving a tractor through a blown glass factory, minus the implied hilarity. Your point is as clear as a canal.
We can go on and on and ON about this with valid points, but in the end I will always come to the conclusion that you are a detriment to my cause. So please, just stop. You've posted your opinion, you replied to two people, there is absolutely no reason for you to continue embarrassing yourself and degrading reason. Like a snowball, it will only get worse the longer you roll.
Though she does bring up an interesting point.
"AHEM AHEM BUSH, haha just kidding"
Okay, not really, but if anyone is doubting my words from before, you need to look no further than the Patriot Act.
this whole question i think is full of deciet full situations
ReplyDeleteone: President declares a national emergency on his own terms ignores the constitution and jails several political figurehead, now this country is a dictatorship, with no one to call this "emergency" finished
two: The president no longer has the power to ignore the constitution and now must go through all the branches to make commands, and a serious emergency hits america, say a deadly pandemic, now the government is too slow to take defensive actions because everyone has their own idea on how it should be handeled. high casualties
there is no such thing as perfect in a government, all systems have their drawbacks and strong points its just a matter of honest people being trusted with such power.
BAYONETS!!!!
Mr. Chat has a very valid point and its one that has haunted this nation on several levels.
ReplyDeleteIts all about who has the right to draw that defined line.
like for instance abortion, some people say that at a certain point in pregnancy the fetus is counted as a human being and its wrong to remove it but a time earlier it is not, so my question is who defines the time that it is and not.
this same sort of question is at the heart of this discussion
when is it truely a national emergency?
but who cares the pesident chooses that anyway.
so on to the next question, can we stop him?
nope.
if he so chooses to ignore the constitution he is now in a world of anarchy were he is the alpha male and will do as he pleases to those who wish to take his place or strip him of his power
a "national emergency" could really turn out to be a real national emergency
Part 16: Looking toward the past.
ReplyDeleteI see a common defense for Abraham Lincoln's actions is that if it had been any other way, the Union would have been lost. While one could arrive at this conclusion with due logic, it still remains an assumption at best. You simply cannot fortify a proper defense on the grounds of speculation alone. That is why I ask you to find factual support that if Lincoln had not acted the way he did, the Union would have lost. Unless you do, and can do so for every "reason" someone chooses to abuse power, I simply cannot accept this as an adequate tactic.
Now, I may be hypocritical at times, but I am not ignorant. I demand this of you, I cannot hope to escape the challenge myself, nor do I have any wish too. No, I will not repeat the Patriot Act, since even I wouldn't know what would have become of America's well-being without it, so I will reference a moment in history where everyone knows the outcome.
Following Hitler's appointment as chancellor, the foundations for what would become known as Nazi Germany had already begun to be laid. Something known as the "Reichstag Fire Decree" was passed in the February of 1933, stripping Germans of basic rights in the name of NATIONAL EMERGENCY. Following the burning down of the German parliament building, the government began to falsely play the incident off as a Communist effort to overthrow the state. Of course, this wasn't the case for it were the Nazis who committed the act, but it had the desired effect. A few months later, in July, the Nazi party was the only political party left in Germany. World War II would start 6 years later, in 1939.
many people are saying that the union would be lost had maryland seceded but what think could of happened is this
ReplyDeleteeither the capitol would have been adbandoned and moved to Philidelphia where it has been before, or the capitol would have become more of a fortress with the whole platomic army in it already fortifying would have had plenty of man power to do so, and what difference does maryland make? the union pretty much controlled the seas which would have been the best way to get to maryland cause you cant "sneak" armies especially when the oppposing army is smack dab in the middle of the only land passage to the other side of the chesapeake bay
simply put all would have not been lost, just longer and more difficult to win
The President has the right to ignore the constitiution during a time of national crisis. What good is a constituion without a country? If Lincoln had not ignored the constituion, it may have resulted in a Southern victory of the war and the continuation of slavery. Speaking of which, the Constitution doesn't even mention slavery at this point in time so obviously it has it's flaws right out of the gate. If the men who drafted the Constitution had dealt with this issue early on then Lincoln wouldn't have had to do the things he did to preserve the Union. But this wasn't the case so Lincoln had to adapt to a bad situation and i think he did the right thing for the future of this country. Things always get bad before they get better. And you know what, i forgive Lincoln for ignoring the Constitution because it's what i would've done.
ReplyDeleteI believe the president should have the right to ignore the constitution incase of an emergency. Even though it was made to be followed it is the presidents job to protect its the country and its people. And if by ignoring the constitution he is protecting everyone then he is doing what's right. During a national emergency the president needs to do what is going to save the country even if it does not apply to the constitution.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes down to it, sometimes rules need to be broken to protect the greater good. Many people believe want to believe that rules should be stable and unwavering in times of crisis, but with devastation right at your doorstep sometimes you have to do what you have to do. Was Lincoln right in what he did? Morally no, but the unfortunate truth is morals are similar to a trend and fluctuate throughout the years. However, I believe Lincoln made a WISE decision, for he decided to go against the rules and do what he thought was necessary even though he knew we would later debate it to this day.
ReplyDeleteTo Mr. Chat
ReplyDeleteI am not sure how to put this any blunter, but I agree. Very interesting WWII reference as well, it made me wonder a very disturbing thought though. In theory, what if all this nation stands for is just a monarchy dressed as a republic. I'm not saying this is my thoughts or even that it's true, but it is an idea I would be happy to see some thoughts on.
A quick shout out to Dexter
ReplyDeleteThank you for bringing up the fact that people interpret things different, many people don't realize that even the majority see things in a different perspective.Makes you wonder how stable the human sych is sometimes ^_^
I do believe that the President has the right to ignore the Constitution, but only during times of national crisis or emergency. Yes, it is difficult to define what a "crisis" or "emergency" is exactly but I am pretty sure that our president has the ability to decide whether the situation is an emergency or not. If our country was in a crisis and the President was not able to do anything about it then what would happen to the country that our founding fathers worked so hard to unite and lead.?
ReplyDeleteAgreeing with what Courtney said about laws being broken for the greater good, think about Thoreau and how he strongly believed that people have the obligation to break laws when they're immoral. Lincoln stated that his actions were done to keep the union preserved and maybe it could of been done some other way but his actions worked.
Along the lines of what Diana mentioned, Lincoln's actions were not right but they did benefit our country in the long run. How would the United States be today if the union would have fallen apart??
I'm sorry Chelsey but I disagree completely. Over the past 200 years we may have followed the Constitution most of the time but sometimes situations called for drastic measures to avoid high risks. Which also leads me to say that i agree but disagree with Wiley and Mr. Chat. I know what you are thinking. Mr. Chat?? that's suicide! I'm pretty sure both of these gentlemen mentioned how it was a possibility for the North to win without Lincoln's actions. I think that's what they were getting at, havn't scrolled up in awhile. could this be true? who knows. But in my opinion it was not worth the risk of losing the war and more American lives.
ReplyDeleteI think the real question here is, what defines a time of crisis?
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I think Lincoln did the right thing by ignoring parts of the constitution so maintain as much of the Union as he could. But the issue is, if a corrupt president, say, oh I don't know, someone like Ulysses S. Grant or Richard Nixon, was elected (again), and decided that they no longer wished to obey the constitution, said president could theoretically define a "time of crisis" as a bomb threat in an elementary school in Wyoming.
Lincoln was obviously not a corrupt man, which is essentially the only reason that his behavior was acceptable. If Lincoln had not done what he did, the Union capital would have been surrounded by Confederate states and the Union would have lost the Civil War.
Overall, I believe that is acceptable for a president to circumvent the constitution in a time of national crisis, but first a concrete definition must be given to the term "time of crisis." Otherwise, the US could be faced, at some point in the future, with a president who decides to ignore the constitution for his or her own monetary gain or political power grab because there is no one to say that the aforementioned bomb threat is NOT an issue of national urgency.
Define "time of crisis" and then we can talk.
-Ringo
Like many other controversial situations in life, this one is full of "what if" concepts that leaves it open to several different arguments. In my own personal opinion, i believe that the president does have the right to override the constitution. It comes down to a situation of choosing the lesser of two evils. Having a country collapse on its own legs and possible ruin it entirely, or diminish the value of a document we hold so near and dear. I don't know about everyone else, but i would much rather go against the constitution rather than not go against it and have it be obsolete due to a divided nation.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the actions taken by President Lincoln during the war, although they violated the constitution, were necessary in order for the North to win against the Confederacy. If Lincoln did nothing at all, Maryland would most likely secede from the Union, leaving Washington DC surrounded by enemy territory. So yes, I do believe that the president has the right, during a time of emergency, to ignore the constitution.
ReplyDeleteI believe the President should have the right to ignore the Constitution in times of crisis for the greater good. Although the Constitution is the greatest and most important document in history, the United States as a country needs to be preserved at all costs. What is the point of having a Constitution if there is no country or no populace to abide by it? If Abraham Lincoln had not ignored the Constitution during the Civil War, the United States as we know it may not exist. The Confederacy would most likely have changed or modified the Constitution to serve their best interests. Sometimes a leader has to follow their instincts and break the rules in order to preserve and protect the institution that they serve. The best leaders know when to break the rules, and when to follow them. That is why the people of the United States must use their judgement when electing a good leader instead of a terrible tyrant that will abuse his powers given to him by the people. Abraham Lincoln was not a tyrant that only strayed from the Constitution for his own benefit. Honest Abe did what he did for the people of the United States.
ReplyDelete@Mr. Chat,
ReplyDelete"You have about as much tact as a drunken midget driving a tractor through a blown glass factory, minus the implied hilarity...So please, just stop. You've posted your opinion, you replied to two people, there is absolutely no reason for you to continue embarrassing yourself and degrading reason. Like a snowball, it will only get worse the longer you roll."
May I suggest that you practice what you preach?
-Ringo
Hello I'd like to casually point out that no matter what side I choose my attempts to support my ideas will be as feeble as yours. Therefore i will go ahead and degrade myself.
ReplyDeleteThe president at no time should ever be able to ignore the Constitution. The constitution becomes no better than the writing prompts we get during standardized tests if any monkey can disregard it when he chooses. Now this brings to question when can a monkey "choose" to disregard the constitution? In an "emergency" of course, but what is an "emergency," not having enough money to by a soda from a vending machine? You tell me. Everyone's defenition of an "emergency" will differ, and whats to stop our elected officials from choosing an emergency as dumb as the one above. People have stated in prior posts that Lincoln needed to ignore the constitution the save the union, yes that makes sense, but that can be considered a crime and he could and maybe should have been impeached for such a crime. On the otherhand he could have found some loophole and arrested the officials of Maryland anyway, "...he was a brilliant politician..."-Mr. Max. One could also ask, " What if he just sat back and the union lost the war?" Well in that case we wouldn't be taking about this prompt. We would be discussing the proper etiquette on how to bid on slaves and how to properly prepare a turducken.
Now many of you will be disturbed by this but there is no such thing as an honest politician, even in America *gasp*. If we as a country did allow out leaders to disregard the constitution in an "emergency" we would have to have a flawlessly honest president. On paper this idea sound almost good but in reality it just won't please everyone (just like shoe bombs). We would have to have a perfect president and that has yet to happen.
Sincerely,
Joe
Amanda, that was as beautiful as ever. I absolutely adored your response and I feel that what you wrote expresses exactly my sentiments.
ReplyDeleteLord Voldemort, true true. You make a very good point. The whole issue revolves around "what if?" situations. We shouldn't focus on the "what if?"'s, instead, we need to focus on what history shows us and decide what we will do now, ahead of time, lest a situation arises in which Lincoln's actions regarding the constitution are will be held up as something to emulate.
Yes, the president should have the right to decide when the Constitution is being used because there are times that immideate action must be taken and the longer that the problem is left alone the more problems it'll cause.
ReplyDeleteFor example a police officer has the suspicion that someone has a dangerous weapon in their home the poliece would have to wait untill he has permission to go inside the house. If the police had evidednce to believed that the person would shoot someone i think that the police should be able to go inside and make sure everuthing is ok this way we could save ourself some time.
Although Lincon should not have gone to such extreame measure as to throwing the people into jail it was for the best.
I see you point Joe but sometimes immediate action needs to be taken. I also agree that no one should have to right to bend the Constitution but sometimes you need to bend the rules.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Amanda and Courtney in that we had choosen Lincon for the president. Also the President was choosen to lead the people into the right direction and sometimes sacrifices must be made for the grater good.
ReplyDeleteFurther more,
Amada was right not everything is in " balck and white" and Courtney's idea that
I believe that Lincoln made the right decision by ignoring the constitution but i don't believe that a president has the right to ignore the constitution for any reason. by Lincoln increasing the size of the army he made a mockery of the constitution. If any president could ignore the constitution at any time whats the point of having a constitution at all.
ReplyDeletePharaoh our founding fathers signed that constitution knowing that they would lose their lives for our rights. They should be honored by americans and the president by at least following there constitution.
Joe i totally agree with you that the constitution would be nothing if any president just surpassed it because a national emergency.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the President, in a time of crisis/an emergency does have the right to ignore the Constitution. I am not saying that what Linclon delt with was an emergency, however, being as that he was the leader of our country, he does in fact have the power to ignore the Constitution. If the Constitution had included a more specific portion dealing with laws and regulations that could be implemented in a time of crisis, things may be different. So in my opinion, yes, the president of the United States does have the right to ignore the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the President has this right. But it comes with a catch. I think that a pres. should only be allowed to do this if they have good morals and are a righteous leader. But then it boils down to the question of "Who is the judge of morality?" So with that being said, I think what Lincoln did is absolutely right. If we look back in history we can see other examples of this. One that comes to mind is Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase. Of course there are examples of presidents doing this and messing up royally, but once again, I reiterate my original point of, if the Constitution is forgotten momentarily in order to preserve this, the greatest nation on the earth, than I have absolutely no problem with it.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with cmontgomary without Lincoln's unconstitutional actions the Union could have been defeated.And the United States would be different today. That just shows how in a crisis like that the president has the right to do anything he can to save the country.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with Chelsey Schaff. The president should have the right to ignore the constitution in times of crisis. As long as what he is doing is for the well of the country then its alright. His job is to take care and run this country and if doing something unconstitutional is what he has to do, then he should.
Michael, how does one determine whether or not the president has good morals or not? Like who is to say he/she does or doesn't have good morals?
ReplyDeletei agree with Chuckee, I mean Ciara, and Ana. America as we know it today may not have existed if Linclon did not break the Constitution. In times of need it may be necessary to break the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteJoe--well put. I agree with you on where you state everyone determines a "emergency" differently. And personally, I still think that Lincoln did the right thing. Aaanndd the no honest poltician part, so true
ReplyDeleteSamantha--You just stated that if it's "a crisis/ an emergency" the president has the right to ignore the constitution, in order to preserve the country of course. But then you stated that it wasn't an emergency, and continued to say that he was correct in doing what he did...If it WASN'T an emergency, then he doesn't have the right to ignore the constitution. So by the sounds of it, it seems like your saying that just because a person is president, they may ignore the constitution whenever it benefits them. Yeah, good idea...
ReplyDeleteMr. Chat: You claim that supporting Lincoln's decision because of the Union's victory is an invalid argument because it can't be proven that the Union would have lost had Maryland seceded.
ReplyDeleteYes, but neither can one prove that the Union would still have won. Of course we can only speculate. And as you pointed out, "one could arrive at this conclusion with due logic."
Chelsey: Think of the Maryland legislature as shooters holding Washington, D.C., at gunpoint. They haven't fired their weapons yet, but the saying "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't quite apply.
I believe that the president should have the right to ignore the constitution in times of emergency. Almost every decision in life is based on circumstances and to follow the constitution although it would hurt the country sounds idiotic to me. For example, if Abraham Lincoln had chosen to follow the constitution during the civil war then the north may have very well lost and this decision could have only been called suicide. Which brings me to the importance of electing a trusted candidate. The person we put in such a high seat of power should be someone we can trust to make the right decisions.
ReplyDeleteChelsea- Neither you or the founding fathers could have predicted all circumstances and as i said in my own answer, i believe that almost all decisions are based on circumstances, how could lincoln have reacted to save the union while still following the constition?
This guy- I completely agree, in times of emergency, it may be necessary for rules to be broken
I agree with Amanda, when saying that "morality isn't black and white. There are gray areas in life that the Constitution fails to account for." President Lincoln may not have been moral at the time but it effected greatly in the future. So in a sense he was moral. It is definatly a gray area, but I still believe it is the presidents right to ignore the constitution in the time of crisis.
ReplyDeleteI believe the president does have the right to ignore the Constitution in times of emergency in SOME cases... not every emergency should it be allowed. Lincoln did what he did because he had to, not for personal gain or anything like that. I think the president should be allowed to bypass the Constitution so long as he is doing it with the good of the country in mind. It was unconstitutional what Lincoln did during the Civil War but our country is still together, we were able to overcome the separation of the country because of him and the actions he took. I don't think Lincoln ignored the Constitution because he thought he would benefit, I think the single reason he ignored it was because the country needed him too. The role of the president is to protect and lead our country, ultimately putting our country before everything else. If our president isn't willing to sacrifice himself or possibly be prosecuted for his actions to save the United States of America in a time of crisis then that person shouldn't be president.(Had anyone brought up Lincoln's actions he might have been put in jail or removed from office)Being President comes with more responsibility than almost any job in the world, with that responsibility comes tough decision making. It is not whether or not the president should be allowed to ignore the Constitution that should come into question, the question of "When is it allowed?" is what should be asked. A Constitution is useless without a country.
ReplyDeleteMicheal - I completely agree with what you said. If rules are broken temporarily for the sake of our nation, then I see no problem.
ReplyDeleteSamantha - Yes. If the constitution had implemented special circumstances where rules could be broken in a national crisis, things might have been different.
I believe that it's okay to break rules in a time of emergency but at the same time I think that the president should be held accountable for everything that he does. If he violates the constitution, whether to save the country or not, then he should have some sort of repercussions for his actions. If everyone went around braking rules then the country would be in utter chaos. I believe that while the President has the power to break rules, it should not mean that he is beyond the reach of having to account for it no matter the outcome. If a normal person were to break a constitutional rule we would have to suffer the consequences, so why should the president be any different? We may benefit from the said rule braking, but at the cost of what? Violation of what this country was founded on? If we discard the constitution and the rules that it gives then we'd be worse off then we were when the states didn't even exist and we were back under British rule. With any sort of violation of a rule comes a consequence. It's what keeps people from doing things that could be harmful to both themselves and the people around them. The President is elected to keep us both safe and prospering. This position gives him a lot of power, but it should not exempt him from the consequences of a normal man. Action is needed in certain circumstances, and that is understandable, but if a standard is set that it is okay for the President to violate the rules then it will happen more frequently, and cause more problems then good outcomes.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in a time of emergency, the president does have the right to intervene and ignore the constitution. The reason that there is democracy is becauase the majority is not always right. so in lincoln doing this, he was trying to tell people what they were doing is morally wrong.
ReplyDeletein response to "Mr.Chat" part 16,
ReplyDeleteits common military sense that the union would have lost if sourounded. when you put the center of the union, their congressmen, their money source, the leader of their army, and you surround it with they enemy, so the enemy controls what goes in and out, of course they are going to lose, they are stuck. it was up to lincoln to say them or us. If lincoln hadnt captured the maryland legislature, they would have captured him once they had succeded. it is sirvival of the fittest.
in response to chelsey,
ReplyDeletePresidents have ignored the constituion in the past 200 years, several times.
9/11 for example. Did bush directly ignore the constitution when we went to the middle east? no, he worded his speech so to avoid saying "war" so he didnt have to go through congress. However, had he not went to "not war" with al quieda, an american would have hijacked one of their planes and bombed them.
my point is, presidents have ignored the constitution and checks and balances to save the country. So your statment ultimatly makes no sense
To my dear Mr. Chat
ReplyDeleteWow, very well put I wholeheartedly agree with your ideas and statements. The section on WWII was fantastic, I couldn't have said it better myself. (that was cliché)
VICTORIA M!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteYour response to chelsey is just as nonsensical as her post. True the Texan did "avoid" the constitution that is a fact. BUT your statement saying that "and american would have hijacked one of their planes and bombed them" is complete BS. Yes Americans were angry but that statement is a complete opinion and not fact.
Love,
Joe
I agree with Susan, that even though the president has the right to violate the constitution at a time of crisis, there should be some sort of justification line. Like Susan said, it would be coas if the constitution was ignored too many times. But I believe that when Susan compares the president to an ordinary person, in reality at the time of their presidency, they have to be more than just an ordinary person- the person who is elected president has to step up and be extra ordinary, because they have the responsibility of leading this country. So I do not think the president should be compared to any person.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shea and KatieLynn when they explained that is right to ignore the Constitution in some very specific instances. We cannot have a leader creating chaos and controversy around country by ignoring the very tenets we abide by. Laws are the glue that hold countries together. Every citizen has a duty to uphold the law, but sometimes the law interferes with the salvation of a country. We must remember to always follow what we believe rather than what is written.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Susan when she says that the President must always be accountable for their actions. If Presidents were not held responsible, then every one of our leaders would abuse their right to not follow the Constitution in times of crisis. There should be some sort of system or guidelines to regulate how the President follows the Constitution during times of duress.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ victoria m
ReplyDeletei agree with what you said, to a certain degree. he does have the right to disregard the constitution if its what is best, but the title of president does not necessarily give him superior, perfect morals. then again, everyone's morals are different. but in this case, i totally agree.
@samantha
i also agree with you to a certain degree. the president should have the power to go against the constitution to an extent, but not on the basis that it lacks certain details of laws and regulations, he should be able to do it in certain situations because he is in fact the president. you can not cover every single situation that COULD come about in the constitution.
KatieLynn's point is right on. "What constitutes an emergency?" or "when can Mr. President use his 'right' to ignore the constition?" should be the real question. The president cannot just throw around the word "emergency" like candy for his own personal gain. He, ideally, should do it for the country. Of course, the government is corrupt, so in reality the president would abuse his power regardless.
ReplyDelete"the constitution would be nothing if any president just surpassed it because a national emergency."
ReplyDeleteOur country could potentially be nothing one day if our president did not rise to the occasion and surpass the constitution in the midst of a national emergency. A severe emergency,that is.
In my opinion I believe that the president should be allowed to ignore the Constitution and do as he feels would be in the best interest for the country in times of crisis and emergency. The Constitution itself was not prepared to cover every single detail and struggle that our nation would face. With that in mind, it is sometimes necessary for the president to step up and utilize the power he has to do as he feels best.
ReplyDeleteAlong with this opinion one may say that if the president can simply ignore the Constitution then there's no point in having one, however, the Constitution was written to maintain peace and set rules for our nation. During times of emergency and crisis I would much rather see our president take the action to keep our country running, than to sit back and say he cannot do anything about it.
In regards to Amanda, I completely agree with what you said. I love how you said that morality is not black and white, but that there are gray areas. Just like you said, Lincoln did make a mockery of the Constitution and what he did to the Maryland legislatures was immoral. But if he would not have done so and would have waited for the consent of Congress then the Union would have fallen apart and he did have the power and right to do so as acting president of the United States.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Pharaoh, I agree with your opinion on the fact that it is the presidents responsibility and duty to provide for the safety of his country. He was voted into office by the people and he does need to take action when he sees that it benefits the country. I too would rather have a president willing to take a stand and deal with the criticism and controversy he may experience to do what he needs to do. If presidents are too scared to do so or delay to long to take appropriate action then our country would fall apart. We need a president that will do what he needs to do to keep the country safe and running, if Lincoln did not do so than our country would not be as we know it today. Therefore, it is important for the president to on occasion ignore the Constitution in times of crisis and emergency.
ReplyDelete