scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Book

Constitutional problems under Lincoln

01 Jan 1926-
About: The article was published on 1926-01-01 and is currently open access. It has received 92 citations till now.
Citations
More filters
01 Jan 2006
TL;DR: In this article, a review of the use of emergency powers by the United States government during times of crisis is presented, focusing on whether the government ever suspended the writ o f habeas corpus, seized private property, set up military courts to try civilians, or advanced other restrictions on a citizen's civil rights.
Abstract: i An Introduction to Emergency Powers Within the United States 1 Statement o f the Research Question 2 Hypothesis to be Tested 3 Definitions o f Martial Law 6 Review o f the Literature and Introduction o f Hobbes’ and Locke’s Theory 10 Brief History o f Martial Law in the United States 16 Case Study: Declaration o f Martial Law by Abraham Lincoln 18 Judicial Review: Ex Parte Milligan (1866) 28 Case Study: Declaration o f Martial Law in Hawaii 31 Judicial Review: Duncan v. Kahanamoku (1945) 42 The 2001 USA Patriot Act 44 The Future o f the Patriot Act and Possible Introduction o f the Patriot Act II 50 Conclusion and Final Analysis 52 Bibliography 58 Abstract Government’s Emergency Power Throughout the History o f the United States This paper reviews the use o f power by the United States government during times o f crisis. This paper analyzes both the arguments from Thomas Hobbes and John Locke regarding how limited both believe government should be. Throughout this debate John Locke believes that in leaving a state o f nature we must enter into civil society through a social contract with each other. Hobbes’ view o f the state o f nature is such that he believes that there should be virtually no limitations on the power o f government in eliminating citizens from the state o f nature conditions. These debates are important today in answering how much power should be given to our government in times o f crisisGovernment’s Emergency Power Throughout the History o f the United States This paper reviews the use o f power by the United States government during times o f crisis. This paper analyzes both the arguments from Thomas Hobbes and John Locke regarding how limited both believe government should be. Throughout this debate John Locke believes that in leaving a state o f nature we must enter into civil society through a social contract with each other. Hobbes’ view o f the state o f nature is such that he believes that there should be virtually no limitations on the power o f government in eliminating citizens from the state o f nature conditions. These debates are important today in answering how much power should be given to our government in times o f crisis and what protections need to be put in place to ensure government does not abuse its power. The following essay analyzes 1) President Abraham Lincoln’s use o f martial law and suspension o f habeas corpus during the Civil War, 2) Hawaii’s use o f martial law after the attack on Pearl Harbor, and 3) 2001 Patriot Act and the future o f such emergency powers within the United States. In analyzing these cases the focus remained on whether within these emergency powers the government ever: suspended the writ o f habeas corpus, seized private property, set up military courts to try civilians, or advanced other restrictions o f citizen’s civil rights. In evaluating these elements one can look at whether government has given back these powers when the threat subsided or has been used to extend government’s power or merely as a tool in bringing us out o f the state o f nature and back into civil society. The findings o f this paper suggest that in each case the government gives power back to its citizens, doing such in manner that is timely and respectful o f citizens’ rights/liberties.

1 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Sep 1996-Society
TL;DR: The war between the States was ended by the outcome of The War Between the States, so that the real sovereign is now not the people but the nine blackrobed deities in Washington who at will decree what our Constitution means as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The sovereignty of the people was ended by the outcome of The War Between the States, so that the real sovereign is now not the people but the nine blackrobed deities in Washington who at will decree what our Constitution means. The Republican Party, even after having won the war, maintained its power only by force and fraud, known as Reconstruction. The war had been fought on the basis that the States could not leave the Union, but were only temporarily under the control of a conspiracy of rebels. Reconstruction was built on an utterly dishonest reversal of ground. The Constitution has never recovered from these lies. The Republican Party, even after having won the war, maintained its power only by force and fraud, known as Reconstruction. Throughout the war and Reconstruction, the Republican Party behaved as a revolutionary party-though sometimes using conservative rhetoric-a Jacobin party, bent on ruling no matter what, on maintaining its own power at any cost.

1 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In his seminal work, The Contest for California in z86z as mentioned in this paper, Kennedy noted that "a company of two hundred [men], organized at Oroville, ostensibly to join the Union Volunteers, their arms and equipment having been paid for in part by Union men, was found to be intended for the rebel army."
Abstract: IN HIS IMPORTANT WORK, The Contest for California in z86z, Elijah R. Kennedy noted that "a company of two hundred [men], organized at Oroville, ostensibly to join the Union Volunteers, their arms and equipment having been paid for in part by Union men, was found to be intended for the rebel army."' His source for the statement was the official printed record of the military and naval forces of the Civil War, which provided convincing evidence for this allegation.2 Late in the critical first winter of civil war, came a warning of incipient rebellion, of armed treason, of potential subversion in the northern California city of Oroville, Butte County. The warning reached the desk of William H. Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of State, who was the official then in charge of suppressing subversion and maintaining internal security on the home front of the divided North. It was this warning, as Secretary Seward read it in 1862, and as Kennedy saw it a half century later, which resulted in the persisting stain on Oroville's patriotism represented in the latter's book: