Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Maybe decent presidents just aren't a thing.

Suspension of habeas corpus is both legal and justified in the face of open rebellion (and invasion as well, but the US has never had to worry about that from a foreign power since the Constitution was written), particularly when Lincoln didn't DO anything to justify the rebellion in the first place. There is a legal argument over where the power to do so rests (the Supreme Court of the era, and the bulk of modern legal opinion agree that it belongs to Congress), but once Congress authorized it any question of legality vanished. One of the things that made Lincoln a superb president was how quickly he gave up those war powers once the rebellion was put down - he spent most of his time between Lee's surrender and his assassination pardoning the Confederate officials and soldiers, and the political jails were emptied quite quickly.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

With the advent of the internet, let's just turn in to a direct democracy. Voting for state issues is held every friday, and federal ones at the end of the month. Big issues are voted on once a year, and certain flashpoint issues are decided when they come up. If not enough people vote, we assume they dont care and it's decided by simple majority. If say, most, citizens vote it's decided by super-majority.

[wierd]

Too easy to circumvent the process via technolgical intrusion. Not viable at this time. Need cheap quantum crypto first.

[Karlito]

Also, have you seen the mess that is California's Ballot Initiatives?

[smjjames]

Also, have you seen the mess that is California's Ballot Initiatives?

Not recently, no.

[TheDarkStar]

(and invasion as well, but the US has never had to worry about that from a foreign power since the Constitution was written)

Britain invaded the US in the War of 1812.

[Lord Shonus]

(and invasion as well, but the US has never had to worry about that from a foreign power since the Constitution was written)

Britain invaded the US in the War of 1812.

There were three such that I can recall off the top of my head - the attack on Washington D.C., the New Orleans Campaign, and an invasion of the Great Lakes region. The first was little more than a large-scale raid intended as retaliation for the US sacking Montreal (or was it Quebec?) during the failed invasion of Canada. The latter two were stopped decisively (at New Orleans and Fort Meigs respectively) fairly quickly - there was no need for martial law on any sort of large scale.

[USEC_OFFICER]

There were three such that I can recall off the top of my head - the attack on Washington D.C., the New Orleans Campaign, and an invasion of the Great Lakes region. The first was little more than a large-scale raid intended as retaliation for the US sacking Montreal (or was it Quebec?) during the failed invasion of Canada. The latter two were stopped decisively (at New Orleans and Fort Meigs respectively) fairly quickly - there was no need for martial law on any sort of large scale.

The attack on Washington DC was in retaliation for sacking York/Toronto/the-then-capital-of-(Lower)-Canada in a raid while the British forces were away doing... something. I forget what. As far as I'm aware the Americans never got far enough into Quebec to even threaten Montreal or Quebec City, since the roads between New England and Canada were terrible and they didn't have enough ships to travel a notable force up the St. Lawrence.

[smjjames]

There were three such that I can recall off the top of my head - the attack on Washington D.C., the New Orleans Campaign, and an invasion of the Great Lakes region. The first was little more than a large-scale raid intended as retaliation for the US sacking Montreal (or was it Quebec?) during the failed invasion of Canada. The latter two were stopped decisively (at New Orleans and Fort Meigs respectively) fairly quickly - there was no need for martial law on any sort of large scale.

The attack on Washington DC was in retaliation for sacking York/Toronto/the-then-capital-of-(Lower)-Canada in a raid while the British forces were away doing... something. I forget what.

They were away fighting Napoleon? It's the right time period.....

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Peninsular Wars and the Blockade of mainland Europe.

[Bohandas]

Trump's running as a Republican but I think he'd also fit in in the Whig party (get it? )

[Lord Shonus]

There were three such that I can recall off the top of my head - the attack on Washington D.C., the New Orleans Campaign, and an invasion of the Great Lakes region. The first was little more than a large-scale raid intended as retaliation for the US sacking Montreal (or was it Quebec?) during the failed invasion of Canada. The latter two were stopped decisively (at New Orleans and Fort Meigs respectively) fairly quickly - there was no need for martial law on any sort of large scale.

The attack on Washington DC was in retaliation for sacking York/Toronto/the-then-capital-of-(Lower)-Canada in a raid while the British forces were away doing... something. I forget what. As far as I'm aware the Americans never got far enough into Quebec to even threaten Montreal or Quebec City, since the roads between New England and Canada were terrible and they didn't have enough ships to travel a notable force up the St. Lawrence.

I always have trouble keeping the Canadian invasions during the Revolutionary War (where the US took Montreal but failed to take Quebec) and the one during the War of 1812. This isn't exactly the thread for the discussion, though.

[scriver]

We should have just crowned George Washington king and been done with it when we had the chance. He wasn't perfect either, but at least people expect hereditary monarchs to do tyrannical stuff from time to time, the bar of good behavior is a lot lower.
 

But his denial to indulge in making himself king is the single best thing about George Washington!

Trump's running as a Republican but I think he'd also fit in in the Whig party (get it? )

[mainiac]

Eisenhower was transphobic and part of the patriarchy.

[wierd]

Eisenhower was transphobic and part of the patriarchy.

Careful now, just because somebody is of an alternative sexuality does not mean they are magically good people.

Take for instance, J Edgar Hoover.  Guy was a closet transvestite (and possibly a homosexual, but I dont know that--Note, I dont really approve of the tone of the linked article- it's inflamatory and needlessly harsh towards being a transvestite. It does however, fully cover Hoover's actions.), but was so into getting dirt on other people that he routinely violated the law to do it.

I would rather have somebody that is squicked out by alternative sexualities, than somebody that thinks it is OK to do whatever the hell they want to, laws be damned.

The former can still be a "Good person", they are just easily grossed out. The latter? Pretty much a bad person regardless.

There's a difference between homo and transphobia (Fear or distrust of trans or homosexual people), and people who have unreasonable hatred for those groups. They are not completely synonymous.