Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well this is the situation we're in because everyone since Bush abused executive orders. Obama's DACA order is a great example. It grants "Equitable Entitlements," which are pretty much Unalienable Rights. Imagine if a president after Lincoln decided that they were going to reverse the Emancipation Proclamation. Would they be in authority to do so? Probably. But you're taking away rights at that point. DACA promised…
> Imagine if a president after Lincoln decided that they were going to reverse the Emancipation Proclamation. Would they be in authority to do so? Probably. But you're taking away rights at that point. The emancipation proclamation was in no way a binding document. It was simply a "proclamation" of the stated position of the executive branch regarding slavery during Lincoln's administration, that they would cease to…
It was a wartime military order during a war in which much of the relevant part of the country came under military occupation. It absolutely was binding.
> It was simply a "proclamation" of the stated position of the executive branch regarding slavery during Lincoln's administration, that they would cease to recognize its' legitimacy as law.
Not only was it not only that, it wasn't at all that. It was an order applied to the rebel territory then under occupation and other rebel territory as it came under occupation.
> The 13th amendment, (an act of congress which created a new law),
The 13th Amendment, as the name suggests, was a Constitutional Amendment. It was proposed to the States by an Act of Congress, but new law was created by ratification by the states. But most slaves were actually freed by the military occupation under the emancipation proclamation, not the 13th Amendment.