I think in the Lincoln context the assertion that Congress "rarely" 
met in the 19th century was meant to imply that he couldn't govern with the 
advice and consent of the Congress because it was never in session, so 
violated the Constitution of necessity.  Obviously, an incorrect assertion by 
the Lincoln apologists.

       My grandfather served in the Montana legislature in the early 1900's, 
which only met for 2 months during the summer of every other year.  Now, 
perhaps the Governor of Montana would have had an "emergency necessity" 
argument in that case from time to time.  Lincoln obviously didn't.

JDS


Jeffrey Duke Southmayd
Somewhat Less Than Distinguished Attorney at Law
Southmayd & Miller
1220 19th Street, N.W.
Fourth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 331-4100
[log in to unmask]
<A HREF="www.southmayd.net">www.southmayd.net</A>  



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