Presidency

Abraham Lincoln: The Powers of the President to Invade

To WILLIAM H. HERNDON, Esq. February 15, 1848.— LETTER TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. WASHINGTON, February 15, 1848.

Dear William :

Your letter of the 29th January was received last night. Being exclusively a constitutional argument, I wish to submit some reflections upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know actuates you. Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is that if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country and that whether such necessity exists in any given case the President is the sole judge.

Before going further consider well whether this is or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only positions are— first, that the soil was ours when the hostilities commenced ; and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President for that reason was bound to defend it; both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact as you can prove that your house is mine. The soil was not ours, and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him Î You may say to him, " I see no probability of the British invading us "; but he will say to you, " Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. Write soon again.

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN.


— Abraham Lincoln (while a Congressman)


mole333's picture

| |

My Wife Faces Homeland Security Part I: Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12

“Yeah, that's it. Just relax.
Have another drink, few more pretzels, little more MSG.
Turn on those Dallas Cowboys on your TV.
Lock your doors. Close your mind.
It's time for the two-minute warning.

Welcome to 1984
Are you ready for the third world war?!?
You too will meet the secret police
They'll draft you and they'll jail your niece”

--Dead Kennedys, "We've Got a Bigger Problem Now”

Have you been PERSONALLY affected by the Bush Administration’s erosion of our Constitutional Rights? Well, now my family is coming face to face with a direct assault on the Bill of Rights, an assault on my wife’s rights. This assault comes directly from Bush with no input from Congress whatsoever.

Homeland Security Presidential Directive Number 12…

This Presidential Directive is all about choice, or so they say. One of those twisted, Orwellian “choices” that isn’t a choice. My wife’s choice is she can either sign over to the Federal Government the right to investigate every aspect of her life (including fingerprinting, credit check, medical records, character references, etc.) or she can “voluntarily” choose to not be allowed entry into the building wherein she works. The choice is hers. The rights that are being lost are those of every single American citizen.


mole333's picture

| | | | | | |

Why last month's SCOTUS decision still pisses me off

It's not just what happened on April 18 when the über-cons that Bush appointed to the Supreme Court set a dangerous precedent by refusing to consider risks to a woman's health to be a valid medical concern anymore. It's how and why it happened at all.

As Katha Pollitt points out in an excellently angry rant in her 'The Nation' column, it really does matter which party you vote for. A Democratic-controlled Congress would never have passed the draconian Partial-Birth Abortion Act. A Democratic President would never have signed it. And a pre-Bush SCOTUS would never have upheld it. (In fact they already didn't, once. But that was before people who really should have known better let the Rethuglican camel's nose into the tent.)

So, NARAL Pro-Choice America -- or whatever your latest bland, pandering brand name is -- maybe, much too late, you'll rethink your policy of supporting pro-choice Republicans, who made the majorities that set the agenda that led us to this very bad place. And maybe, Tom Frank and assorted liberal know-it-alls of the op-ed page and blogosphere who've been telling us to calm down because Republicans are all bark and no bite on abortion, you'll take a look at the real world. Sometimes politicians deliver on their promises. As for all you pro-choicers with qualms out there -- who think abortion is icky and "late term" abortion especially so, although you couldn't say exactly when that even is, and who wonder why women are so careless and shouldn't emergency contraception have taken care of this already? -- maybe it's time to start defending the right you say you believe in, instead of cutting the ground out from under it.

Yeah. What she said.


M. Loutre's picture

| | | | | | | | | |

No, she's not electable, Mr. Carville

How do you know that Team Hillary is definitely planning a run for 2008? When James Carville starts writing Op-Eds that make the threadbare case that she can be elected.

Carville's case is essentially this: Hillary got elected in 2000 to the Senate despite objections from the naysayers; some of her polling numbers are not catastrophic; she has a net positive rating of 54%-42%; having been through the right-wing slime treatment for over a decade, nothing they can say, supposedly, will stick; and besides, those people who like her really, really like her.

Wake up, James (if I may call you that). It ain't so.

Hillary got elected in 2000 because of four factors: her willingness to work very hard for it, her own glamour as First Lady, her luck in having a weak opponent, and because New York is a blue state, at the time a blue state still angry over impeachment. For a sitting First Lady, especially this one, to get elected against a completely unknown junior Congressman in this state is not illustrative of anything. Whatever naysayers there were, not that I can really recall any, were at best marginal; after all, Rangel and Moynihan recruited her.


Michael Bouldin's picture

| | | | | | | | | | | |

Homeland Security to NYC: Screw You (NYC as Bait?)

On 9/11/2001 the consequences of ignoring the threat of al-Qaeda was driven home dramatically. America, NYC in particular, had the lesson slammed home on that day. President Clinton had warned us, Bush included, that al-Qaeda was the threat to watch. His warnings were ignored. We paid the price on 9/11.

But has the lesson been learned? Did the Bush administration realize that its agenda had to focus on defeating al-Qaeda? At first it seemed that they had. The invasion of Afghanistan and the toppling of the al-Qaeda-allied Taliban was clearly the right first step. I was heartened when Bush took that first step.

But then came Tora Bora. Bush abandoned the War Against Terrorism, pulled out a large chunk of our troops and let Osama bin Laden get away. Why? To invade Iraq, a nation that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Bush let his attention wander from the war against those who attacked NYC and America. Bush dropped the ball.

As I have written recently, and perhaps at too great a length, that decision by Bush to abandon the real war in favor of his directionless war on Iraq has allowed al-Qaeda and the Taliban not only to regroup, but to expand. They are stronger than ever by our own admission. Bush dropped the ball and the enemy that attacked NYC and America is stronger than ever. Bush is losing the War Against Terrorism, just as he is losing his directionless war against Iraq, "Mission Accomplished" not withstanding. In fact, the Iraqis are taking Bush up on his offer and are "Bringing it on." And now we have even given al-Qaeda its long-desired foothold in Iraq.


mole333's picture

| | | | | | | | | |

Apologies from a dittohead

Crack open your umbrellas ... there may be pigs flying.

Doug McIntyre, star of McIntyre in the Morning is a republican apologist who has woken up to reality and apologizes for, not just voting for Bush but using his radio show to ennable his administrations lies and abuses of power.

I'm speechless:

[via McIntyre in the Morning 790 KABC-FM]:

It was the wrong course. All of it was wrong. We are not on the road to victory. We’re about to slink home with our tail between our legs, leaving civil war in Iraq and a nuclear armed Iran in our wake. Bali was bombed. Madrid was bombed. London was bombed. And Bin Laden is still making tapes. It’s unspeakable. The liberal media didn’t create this reality, bad policy did.

Most historians believe it takes 30-50 years before we get a reasonably accurate take on a President’s place in history. So, maybe 50 years from now Iraq will be a peaceful member of the brotherhood of nations and George W. Bush will be celebrated as a visionary genius.

But we don’t live fifty years in the future. We live now. We have to make public policy decisions now. We have to live with the consequences of the votes we cast and the leaders we chose now.

After five years of carefully watching George W. Bush I’ve reached the conclusion he’s either grossly incompetent, or a hand puppet for a gaggle of detached theorists with their own private view of how the world works. Or both.


liza's picture

| | | | | | | | |

Lingual Tremors has the best SOTUA ever!


Eight entries more than what I would have done and with 100% more snark. Blog bless her.

I tried, I honestly tried but I swear, I developed Sudden ADD Syndrome. I just could not focus on the damn thing. All I kept hearing was the list that even LT picked up on :

[via Lingual Tremors: Live State of the Union Blogging 8]:

Notable Quotables:

Terrorism: 16
Freedom: 15
History: 10

More Notables: democracy, future, economy, hope, peace, honor, isolationism

My list has : freedom, terrorists, fight, evil empire, kill, captured, nukular, historic, teeranee, idealism ... and the sucking sound-bite : "We will not be hit again."

Honorable mentions :
Rox Populi: SOTU Crystal Ball Bloggin'

Think Progress | State of the Union


liza's picture

| | | | | |

Gang of 14

7 Democrats:
Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut
Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia
E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska
Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
Daniel Inouye, Hawaii
Mark Pryor, Arkansas
Ken Salazar, Colorado

7 Republicans:
John S. McCain III, Arizona
Lindsey O. Graham, South Carolina
John Warner, Virginia
Olympia Snowe, Maine
Susan M. Collins, Maine
R. Michael DeWine, Ohio
Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island


liza's picture

| | |
Syndicate content

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Who's online

There are currently 4 users and 1261 guests online.

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

'When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace...'


— Jimi Hendrix


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify