I have heard many of the Neocons fall back on Abraham Lincoln as being the greatest president to have every lived. After all, he saved the Union through force and how they love all of that "shock and awe". Despite the fact there where Democrats that where active in attempts to come to a peaceful compromise. The Copperheads or Peace Democrats where looking for a way other then war. Obviously, the fractured Democratic Party of the 1860s was their own worst enemy and reason gave way to madness.
http://www.harpweek.com/...
Like many events in history, single accomplishments often become the focal point of the historic reference. Ask many and they will tell you that the Civil war ended slavery, end of story. Nobody that I know in the Democratic Party would stand in defense of slavery today but many think this was the only issue in question. Look at Bush's attempts to shape the reasoning for Iraq. WMD and security have now given way to the release of a people from repression. Is that really the motive today, and was it really the motive then.
However, despite all the atrocities wrought on Liberty and Justice by Abraham Lincoln's administration, the single issue of slavery seems to resonate today as the only reason for the Civil War. Slavery was an issue, but also states rights, and regional economies. The majority seems to forget the cost of that conflict and refuse to believe that the noble cause that stands as the cornerstone might have been achieved without all the bloodshed. We will never know for sure!
http://members.tripod.com/...
OK, so "Honest Abe" is the man the Neocons look back to for wisdom and guidance through these troubled times. We have an administration today that feels that eavesdropping without warrants is AOK. An administration that wants to suspend Habeas Corpus, (http://www.lectlaw.com/...) an administration that wants to quell dissent and stifle free speech. All these actions, previously taken by Honest Abe during the Civil War, are now being looked at as precedence for the current powers.
With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers "not" delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.
http://www.civil-liberties.com/...
Sound familiar? While Congress is not in session!!!!
Suspend Civil Law????????????
Arrest those with differing opinions?????????????
Keep in mind that Habeas Corpus was reinstated in 1866 where civil courts had the capacity to perform. After the smoke settled and when the courts finally had a chance to reflect, what they found was these unbridled powers where ILLEGAL. The courts decided that the president did not have the power to seize "ALL" control; they did not have the power to suspend "our" liberties and "our" freedoms. Not then, not now!
http://www.civil-liberties.com/...
Bush and friends tell us now that they need to eavesdrop on conversations and they can't be bothered with the FISA laws. Laws established to give him exactly the power he is seeking. A court that does not know how to say no! A law that is a bother, a pain, a problem. If this law where not in place, perhaps... maybe... they might have a point!
http://www.epic.org/...
But the fact remains, that there is a law and it is not up to Bush or his administration to suspend it or ignore it. It is not up to Bush to suspend Habeas Corpus... it is not up to this administration and the rest of the corrupt Republicans to change everything.
Think of the current Supreme Court and tell me you have confidence that Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito would defend your rights the same way? This carefully stacked court is designed by the Neocons to decide these things in a very particular way when they are finally heard. A court whose decisions could corrode the fabric of freedom, as surely as acid dropped on our skin.
Curious that Abraham Lincoln also said:
Let me not be understood as saying that there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise for the redress of which no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing. However, I do mean to say that although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed.
So which is it? Religiously observe the law, change it if you do not like it... or simply ignore it if it is in your way? Lincoln ignored his own words, Bush has probably never heard them!
One last thought for the day and I will be on my way. The United States Supreme Court is nine souls who each have powers that represent around 32 million people each. The current population of the United States is approaching 300 million. When the Constitution was written, the population was less then 4 million. There were nine justices then, there are nine justices now. Perhaps it is time to grow the size of this body so that we are each represented a little better.
With a constant division of around 50/50 on key issues ... it is not fair to have the court stacked one way or the other. Their decisions apparently are tainted by majorities that give them the power; not the minorities they are charged with defending. This trend can and will eventually erode the effectiveness of fairness.
The Supreme Court reinstated Habeas Corpus in 1866, and put the presidential powers back in check: but at a time when they where not so diluted. It seems to me that the constant efforts to groom and shape the court, can, and will lead us back to a place where conflict will be the only means to restore liberty and not a place nor time any of us want to go. A larger body would go a long way towards reasoned decisions and restoration of balance in "our" nation.