Excuse me, the Constitution does not give the President all the
powers that he is not specifically excluded from having.  Please drop me a
note on your basis for that assertion. To the contrary, it only gives the
President certain limited powers contained therein, just as it only gives the
Congress and the judiciary certain limited powers.  Are you suggesting that
because the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit the president from
from kicking dogs on the street  that he is free to do so if he deems it
necessary?

       Were Harry Jaffa the Chief Justice of the United States his
interpretation might have some weight.  However, he isn't and Taney was.
Case closed on that point as far as I can tell.

       Are you suggesting that Lincoln's speech had the effect of resolving a
controversy involving his failure to enforce a writ duly issued by the courts
and served on him?  I didn't realize that presidential speeches had the
effect of law, and could overrule an act of the federal courts sua sponte,
and am surprised in his speech before the Congress he didn't admit his
actions were unconstitutional, since he was, after all, "Honest Abe."

       By the way, what does the fact a historian is conservative, "centrist"
or liberal have to do with the quality of his/her scholarship.  A number of
people continue to attempt to qualify, and apparently legitimize, someone's
position by assigning some political label to him or her.  I don't get that.
 I don't put much credence in stereotypes (educated people like me don't
stereotype like those dumb uneducated people).

       As to my reading, I'll have you know that I am a graduate of "Hooked
On Phonics."

JDS









To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html