Habeas Corpus Constitution ,Congress and Law

[jgoodguy]

Not wrong, right. You're responding to a post about Lincoln's unconstitutional and extrajudicial suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. We've been over and over this before.

We have indeed, but it was not unconstitutional. The constitution is a bit vague on who between the congress, president or both can suspend the writ. However if under war powers the armed forces can shoot enemies, it follows that they can also detain them. It was not extra legal as the SCOTUS ignored Taney and exparte Maryland.

Even the U.S. Congress, as convened during the War, rejected Lincoln's power grab in this respect. ...

In 1861 Congress adopted general retroactive language rendering Lincoln's previous actions during the spring "in all respects legalized" on August 8, 1861. In March 3, 1863 the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act was passed.

 

[Drew]

In 1861 Congress adopted general retroactive language rendering Lincoln's previous actions during the spring "in all respects legalized" on August 8, 1861. In March 3, 1863 the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act was passed.

False. Post the actual legislation passed by the Republican-controlled, Civil War Congress, which Lincoln signed. Then, we can go over this again if you wish.

I will state again, you are mistaken, should you wish to discuss this further.

 

[jgoodguy]

False. Post the actual legislation passed by the Republican-controlled, Civil War Congress, which Lincoln signed. Then, we can go over this again if you wish.

I will state again, you are mistaken, should you wish to discuss this further.

Lets discuss. Be sure that you that must prove me wrong.

 

[cash]

Just to provide the information requested:

 

[WJC]

False. Post the actual legislation passed by the Republican-controlled, Civil War Congress, which Lincoln signed. Then, we can go over this again if you wish.
I will state again, you are mistaken, should you wish to discuss this further.

For those of us observing this 'clash of titans' from the 'peanut gallery', which are you disputing? The legislation of August 8, 1861 or that of March 3, 1863?

 

[cash]

For those of us observing this 'clash of titans' from the 'peanut gallery', which are you disputing? The legislation of August 8, 1861 or that of March 3, 1863?

August 6, 1861.

 

[WJC]

August 6, 1861.

Thanks for your response.
And thank you for furnishing the documentation. I look forward to whatever responses the 'titans', @Drew and @jgoodguy have....

 

[jgoodguy]

Only one titan, Drew, I am meekly awaiting enlightenment. .

 

[jgoodguy]

Looking at "Lincoln's unconstitutional and extrajudicial suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. "
To be unconstitutional, unless it is just an opinion, a SCOTUS decision is needed declaring it so. No such decision exists.
Anyone can have an opinion about the Constitution, but SCOTUS decides factually..

We have Taney's ex parte Marryman but it appears to be more drama than legal. The ruling is also in the records of the district court and not the records of SCTOUS.
Ex parte Merryman - Federal Judicial Center

Limited orders of the court
In the courtroom announcement and in the written opinion, Taney took the
extraordinary step of ordering the clerk of court to send a transcript of the Merryman
proceedings to President Lincoln. "It will then remain for that high officer, . . ." con-
cluded Taney, "to determine what measures he will take to cause the civil process of
the United States to be respected and enforced." The provocative challenge to the
President deflected attention from the court's own lack of action.

Taney issued no order to secure the release of John Merryman or to enforce the
writs of the court. Taney announced to the court that he would not hold the marshal
responsible for enforcing the writ of attachment or arresting General Cadwalader
because "it has become so notorious that the military power is superior to the judi-
cial." In his written opinion, Taney claimed to "have exercised all the power which the
constitution and laws confer upon me, but that power has been resisted by a force too
strong for me to overcome."

The only formal orders of the court were those related
to the filing of the records and the delivery of a copy to the President. As the written
opinion made clear, Taney embraced the opportunity to chastise the President but
avoided any order he could not enforce.

Prohibited Government Acts: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution
By Jack Stark
Interesting discussion about Ex parte Merryman worth looking at but concludes.

In short war and insurrection are outside of SCOTUS review in limited circumstances.

 

[wausaubob]

Just to provide the information requested:

View attachment 144376

I think that it is adequate evidence of ratification.

 

[cash]

Looking at "Lincoln's unconstitutional and extrajudicial suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. "
To be unconstitutional, unless it is just an opinion, a SCOTUS decision is needed declaring it so. No such decision exists.
Anyone can have an opinion about the Constitution, but SCOTUS decides factually..

We have Taney's ex parte Marryman but it appears to be more drama than legal. The ruling is also in the records of the district court and not the records of SCTOUS.
Ex parte Merryman - Federal Judicial Center

Prohibited Government Acts: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution
By Jack Stark
Interesting discussion about Ex parte Merryman worth looking at but concludes.
View attachment 144453
In short war and insurrection are outside of SCOTUS review in limited circumstances.

Ex Parte Merryman was Roger B. Taney sticking his tongue out at Lincoln and yelling, "Your mother wears army boots!" at him.

 

[WJC]

Looking at "Lincoln's unconstitutional and extrajudicial suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. "
To be unconstitutional, unless it is just an opinion, a SCOTUS decision is needed declaring it so. No such decision exists.
Anyone can have an opinion about the Constitution, but SCOTUS decides factually..

We have Taney's ex parte Marryman but it appears to be more drama than legal. The ruling is also in the records of the district court and not the records of SCTOUS.
Ex parte Merryman - Federal Judicial Center

Prohibited Government Acts: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution
By Jack Stark
Interesting discussion about Ex parte Merryman worth looking at but concludes.
View attachment 144453
In short war and insurrection are outside of SCOTUS review in limited circumstances.

Thanks for posting.

 

[civilken]

we can put up all the statistics we want today but I believe back in 1860 the war was a toss up either side had a chance. The only ones that say no are the lost course people and some Northerners who don't want to admit that the south came very close to winning on either side it was never in the bag.

 

[cash]

we can put up all the statistics we want today but I believe back in 1860 the war was a toss up either side had a chance. The only ones that say no are the lost course people and some Northerners who don't want to admit that the south came very close to winning on either side it was never in the bag.

I think you put this in the wrong thread.

 

[civilken]

I think you put this in the wrong thread.

yes you are right I do this all the time my apologies it was supposed to be in Col. Ireland all I should say to the men and women of this forum thanks for putting up with me.

 

[cash]

yes you are right I do this all the time my apologies it was supposed to be in Col. Ireland all I should say to the men and women of this forum thanks for putting up with me.

No problem. Just glad it can be put in the right place.

 

[Drew]

Lets discuss. Be sure that you that must prove me wrong.

No problem, this isn't hard.

Just to provide the information requested:

View attachment 144376

This has nothing to do with the issue at hand, but thanks for playing.

 

[jgoodguy]

No problem, this isn't hard.



This has nothing to do with the issue at hand, but thanks for playing.

I appreciate your enlightenment above.

 

[Drew]

Thanks for your response.
And thank you for furnishing the documentation. I look forward to whatever responses the 'titans', @Drew and @jgoodguy have....

I ain't the titan, but the student. Here, help me understand what Congress actually did, in 1863?

Read this carefully. Section One authorizes the president to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Section Two requires anyone held under said Suspension to be brought before a Grand Jury and released immediately in the absence of sufficient criminal evidence.

"Yes, Mr. President, we have no bananas!"

The Republican-controlled Congress in 1863 passed a face-saving measure that in practical terms did NOT authorize anyone thrown in jail to be held on Lincoln's whim. This may not satisfy @jgoodguy but the actual legislation is the best I can do.

 

[jgoodguy]

Read this carefully. Section One authorizes the president to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Section Two requires anyone held under said Suspension to be brought before a Grand Jury and released immediately in the absence of sufficient criminal evidence

It appears you are saying that Section 2 gives Lincoln the authority to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus in section 1 but section 2 takes it away?.

The Republican-controlled Congress in 1863 passed a face-saving measure that in practical terms did NOT authorize anyone thrown in jail to be held on Lincoln's whim. This may not satisfy @jgoodguy but the actual legislation is the best I can do.

The 1863 Republicans passed a law you do not like.

"Yes, Mr. President, we have no bananas!"

off topic. No bananas in Washington DC until after the Civil War.

I ain't the titan, but the student. Here, help me understand what Congress actually did, in 1863?

You give me the impression you think you tower over the 1863 Republicans.