General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "There's no statute or specific provision of the Constitution that specifically authorizes [View all]Igel
(37,332 posts)was issued by the CiC of the army in a conquered and occupied territory, and it applied no further than that and only for the duration of the occupation.
We needed a Constitutional Amendment to make it nationwide and permanent.
It's like that "40 acres and a mule," a wartime order given by a general in a specific area of the occupied territory, done at least partly to get refugees from following his forces and consuming his men's provisions. Remove the context and suddenly there's some huge precedent for doing anything in violation of the Constitution, even as we claim to be the ones upholding the "spirit" of the Constitution. Whatever that means; I've always had a hard time, for example, saying "I'm upholding the spirit of the law by willfully violating it."