Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
29. Thanks. Yes, there is, however
Fri May 11, 2012, 10:12 AM
May 2012

it is after the homophobic bigot states rebel, and refuse to recognize LGBT rights after they are ordered to do so, that Obama gets to do the Abe Lincoln thing. Sometimes your so-called "military dictatorships" can be good things under just circumstances.

Emancipation Proclamation

The Emancipation Proclamation is an executive order issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, during the American Civil War using his war powers. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states then in rebellion, thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at that time. The Proclamation immediately freed 50,000 slaves, with nearly all the rest (of the 3.1 million) freed as Union armies advanced. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens.[1]

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln issued a preliminary proclamation that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. None returned, and the order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect except in locations where the Union had already mostly regained control. The Proclamation made abolition a central goal of the war (in addition to reunion), outraged white Southerners who envisioned a race war, angered some Northern Democrats who thought it was unconstitutional, energized anti-slavery forces, and weakened forces in Europe that wanted to intervene to help the Confederacy.[2]

Slavery was made illegal everywhere in the U.S. by the Thirteenth Amendment, which took effect in December 1865.

Lincoln issued the Proclamation under his authority as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.[3] As such, he had the martial power to suspend civil law in those states which were in rebellion. He did not have Commander-in-Chief authority over the four slave-holding states that had not declared a secession: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. The Emancipation Proclamation was never challenged in court. To ensure the abolition of slavery everywhere in the U.S., Lincoln pushed for passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. Congress passed it by the necessary 2/3 vote in February 1865 and it was ratified by the states by December 1865.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=674650

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

du rec. nt xchrom May 2012 #1
I think I get it. vaberella May 2012 #2
Great if you spend the rest of your life in that state that recognizes you marriage HockeyMom May 2012 #5
I know. vaberella May 2012 #8
Bipartisanship? mmonk May 2012 #3
when ANYONE says "leave it to the states" they almost always mean "we'd lose at the federal level." unblock May 2012 #4
Stare Decisis HockeyMom May 2012 #12
that's true, but saying that it should be enforced through the courts cali May 2012 #6
It's the Constitution that did that, not the President. n/t pnwmom May 2012 #7
Exactly. Historically, it's been viewed as a power reserved to the states. pinboy3niner May 2012 #10
That decision already happened: Loving v. Virginia. Pab Sungenis May 2012 #11
You misunderstand his point. Skinner May 2012 #17
They don't need to. Pab Sungenis May 2012 #18
I agree. hack89 May 2012 #20
I don't understand your point. Skinner May 2012 #24
Congress has nothing to do with it. Pab Sungenis May 2012 #26
Ok, then. I agree. Skinner May 2012 #28
Religion should be taken out of marriage. LiberalFighter May 2012 #22
AMEN ! SoCalDem May 2012 #30
Maybe this is what he has to do... Zorra May 2012 #9
So we would have marriage equality but also military dictatorship? EFerrari May 2012 #27
Thanks. Yes, there is, however Zorra May 2012 #29
my two cents Ship of Fools May 2012 #13
Because, as the law now stands, it IS The Velveteen Ocelot May 2012 #14
Barney Frank... SidDithers May 2012 #15
Here is why: Because marriage has always been a state issue. Skinner May 2012 #16
I would think that the protection of civil rights would trump any claim that states have Bonobo May 2012 #19
Some day, the protection of civil rights WILL trump any claim that states have. Skinner May 2012 #23
Some federal laws are more about what states can't do loyalsister May 2012 #21
A minority, especially one like our LGBT minority Zorra May 2012 #25
I think the issue is two fold.......... mrmpa May 2012 #31
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If marriage is a civil ri...»Reply #29