DISQUS

Not quite -- Article I of the Constitution addresses the powers of the Congress, not the President (Article II). So, Lincoln's unilateral suspension of the writ was an unlawful act -- there really isn't much disagreement over that conclusion, today (this was, indeed, the holding of Ex Parte Merryman, and Lincoln pointedly ignored the Supreme Court's holding) -- though, to be sure, there certainly are arguments available that justify Lincoln's action (e.g., nothing in Article II specifically forbid Lincoln from doing what he did; suspension is a "coordinate" power; etc.)

To sidestep the whole issue, what Lincoln actually did (after ignoring the Supreme Court) was to go to Congress later (July 4, 1861) and ask for the Congress, in retrospect, to ratify his action, which the Congress did, thereby pushing off the issue for later generations to argue about. Indeed, it was in this very address that Lincoln made his point about "all the laws but one" -- in an effort to convince Congress, which he acknowledged had some role in all of this, to ratify his actions after the fact. Importantly, Lincoln called the July 4 special Congressional session to convene *before* he suspended the writ, in April (obviously back then it took longer to bring all members of Congress together in one place) -- giving the legislature plenty of notice.

Many critics of the Bush administration (including Jack Goldsmith) have pointed out that, in stark contrast to Lincoln [and FDR], who both made at least some gestures to Congress in this realm, Bush really didn't, at least not til very late in the game. That political aspect of presidential leadership, putting aside the technical legal points, is one crucial area where Bush pretty obviously was deficient. Considering Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for large parts of his tenure, the whole thing is even more confounding -- though, as President Obama is sure to find out, having your party in complete control is not always all it's made up to be.

That was a very interesting posted. I really liked it; a lot. I would like to let you guys know that when ever you get prank called check out this Reverse Phone lookup video.

PLEASE PLAY AT SUMMERCAMP09 THAT REALLY WOULD BE EPIC!!!!

We need soccer fields for all of the unemployed people to do something besides protesting this stupidity when taxes and inflation go up.

Atlanta will need more police officers as the tax protests get bigger and bigger. Get ready for the commercial real estate collapse in 2009...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nJ7LM3iyNg

so sad he not gonna be here on my b-day feb. 25

I usually see upstanding citizens arrested for driving while intoxicated and possession of a controlled substance. Hmm, let's see...Tested for alcohol, failed that; illegal drugs found on person, yup, failed that test also...Yeah, I can see how he's an upstanding guy.

Generally speaking religious extremists sound like 'arrogant motherfucker' above* so I'll assume he is one, otherwise he would be an embarrassment to us atheists =/

Generally speaking religious extremists sound like 'arrogant motherfucker' above* so I'll assume he is one, otherwise he would be an embarrassment to us atheists =/

you're welcome.

It's your personal website where you engage in completely self-absorbed rants with occasional spiritual gems, and you actually believe your line that a bunch of people coming to hear YOU rant every day on this site is an equal-level "community" of authentic believers and that it isn't the ego-trip everyone else knows it to be.

die hard 4 = pg13

no more pg13!
no more remakes!

Leave RoboCop alone, the film by a Paul Verhoeven is a master piece of science fiction. A remake is not necessary.

OMG What a low down gold diggin fool.

The first sentence of corporatemurderer pretty much defines the man. It would seem that he is the logical choice to be sent to Iraq to do the job with all his hatred and death wishes. Look in the mirror my friend and you will a see a reflection of those you despise. Is there really a difference? Now go ahead and respond to this with more hatred because I'll forgive you. As you state, there is no such thing as mistakes and incompetance however there is such a thing as ignorance as you clearly prove.

Good debate and thoughts - a couple things:

1) The fact that the Board of Trustees at Bethel do not have to follow the policy is alone enough to not follow the policy. If the leaders of the school, Leith Anderson, Jerry Sheveland, etc. etc. do not have to follow the policy they govern, how can anyone follow any of it? Do as I say, not as I do?

2) Schools within Bethel, Graduate School and College of Adult and Professional Studies do not follow the lifestyle statement. So, 20% of the school is exempt? Ridiculous -

3) Recently over the summer the college faculty voted to lift the policy and 70% or so voted against it - too bad it was non-binding as the Board (who sets policy along with President Brushaber) controls this piece. See the same board who does not have to follow the policy, and who I know from personal experiences drink - at least the board member I went out to dinner with a few years ago.

So, as someone who obviously is part of this system that we are talking about, knows this policy will be gone when President Brushaber retires, and is not worried about the policy. The campus should be a dry campus and those who are 21 should be able to drink off-campus.

I feel for you Pete and appreciate your struggle, but, the policy is flawed and needs to be changed. A funny side note - if Bethel tried to fire people because they were drinking, I would be interested to see how fast that policy would be gone as it would not have a leg to stand on in court. But, I could be wrong. A few thoughts from an insider who likes Sierra Nevada and Anchor Steam - :)

Good debate and thoughts - a couple things:

1) The fact that the Board of Trustees at Bethel do not have to follow the policy is alone enough to not follow the policy. If the leaders of the school, Leith Anderson, Jerry Sheveland, etc. etc. do not have to follow the policy they govern, how can anyone follow any of it? Do as I say, not as I do?

2) Schools within Bethel, Graduate School and College of Adult and Professional Studies do not follow the lifestyle statement. So, 20% of the school is exempt? Ridiculous -

3) Recently over the summer the college faculty voted to lift the policy and 70% or so voted against it - too bad it was non-binding as the Board (who sets policy along with President Brushaber) controls this piece. See the same board who does not have to follow the policy, and who I know from personal experiences drink - at least the board member I went out to dinner with a few years ago.

So, as someone who obviously is part of this system that we are talking about, knows this policy will be gone when President Brushaber retires, and is not worried about the policy. The campus should be a dry campus and those who are 21 should be able to drink off-campus.

I feel for you Pete and appreciate your struggle, but, the policy is flawed and needs to be changed. A funny side note - if Bethel tried to fire people because they were drinking, I would be interested to see how fast that policy would be gone as it would not have a leg to stand on in court. But, I could be wrong. A few thoughts from an insider who likes Sierra Nevada and Anchor Steam - :)

Good debate and thoughts - a couple things:


1) The fact that the Board of Trustees at Bethel do not have to follow the policy is alone enough to not follow the policy. If the leaders of the school, Leith Anderson, Jerry Sheveland, etc. etc. do not have to follow the policy they govern, how can anyone follow any of it? Do as I say, not as I do?



2) Schools within Bethel, Graduate School and College of Adult and Professional Studies do not follow the lifestyle statement. So, 20% of the school is exempt? Ridiculous -



3) Recently over the summer the college faculty voted to lift the policy and 70% or so voted against it - too bad it was non-binding as the Board (who sets policy along with President Brushaber) controls this piece. See the same board who does not have to follow the policy, and who I know from personal experiences drink - at least the board member I went out to dinner with a few years ago.



So, as someone who obviously is part of this system that we are talking about, knows this policy will be gone when President Brushaber retires, and is not worried about the policy. The campus should be a dry campus and those who are 21 should be able to drink off-campus.



I feel for you Pete and appreciate your struggle, but, the policy is flawed and needs to be changed. A funny side note - if Bethel tried to fire people because they were drinking, I would be interested to see how fast that policy would be gone as it would not have a leg to stand on in court. But, I could be wrong. A few thoughts from an insider who likes Sierra Nevada and Anchor Steam - :)