Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,008
First things first. I am delighted to see the intellectual honesty that recognizes that Lincoln had no authority to suspend Habeas Corpus. But sadly, the rest of your comment indicates an endorsement of the uncivilized doctrine of "might makes right". I do wish you would rethink that.
Thanks for your response.
Where do you see evidence of an endorsement in a straightforward definition of the question?
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,324
Location
los angeles ca
So what's the point? Most everyone agrees that Lincoln's action was unconstitutional. The argument is whether or not it was necessary as a measure to preserve the Union.
Not so sure about that. No poster has posted a full US Supreme Court decision or a full US Circuit Court decision that states that President Lincoln violated the US Constitution by suspension of habeus corpus. The Wikipedia article on Ex Parte Merrymen cites other US Supreme Court Justices acting in the capacity of Circuit Court judges who agreed with the suspension of habeus corpus. Congress did pass a law in 1863 that limited but did allow President Lincoln under certain circumstances to suspend habeus corpus. I did cite an article in the previous thread on Habeus corpus that discuses' that.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,324
Location
los angeles ca
Still havent seen any proof it was or wasnt. Just some dictionary definitions and opinions. Without question the belligerent status is a certainty. It had many of the characteristics of a nation state. Where is the proof recognition was a requirement?
If you study the history of any nation they always make great efforts to seek diplomatic relations with as many nations as they can. Nations or political entities even will pay other nations for the privilege of diplomatic relations. I can give examples via PM since it's modern politics. If the Confederacy had diplomatic relations it's Navy could of been serviced for as long as necessary in another nation.
Leftyhunter
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
490
To All,

Some books that might be of interest on this thread's topic.

Lincoln's Constitution, by Daniel Farber.

Lincoln & The Court, by Brian McGinty.

Lincoln And Chief Justice Taney, by James F. Simon.

Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime, by Geoffrey R. Stone.

Lincoln's Wrath, by Jeffrey Manber & Neil Dahlstrom.

Lincoln And The Press, by Robert S. Harper.

Southern Rights, by Mark E. Neely, Jr.

America's Constitution, by Akhil Reed Amar.

Sincerely,
Unionblue


I have to read all those books? Couldn't I just read Article II, section 2, of the U.S. Constitution? That's where the powers of the presidency are enumerated, so that's where the power to suspend Habeas Corpus is. Right?
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
490
Still havent seen any proof it was or wasnt. Just some dictionary definitions and opinions. Without question the belligerent status is a certainty. It had many of the characteristics of a nation state. Where is the proof recognition was a requirement?

There is zero proof because there is no such requirement. And the Declaration of Independence emphatically says so.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,008
Not so sure about that. No poster has posted a full US Supreme Court decision or a full US Circuit Court decision that states that President Lincoln violated the US Constitution by suspension of habeus corpus. The Wikipedia article on Ex Parte Merrymen cites other US Supreme Court Justices acting in the capacity of Circuit Court judges who agreed with the suspension of habeus corpus. Congress did pass a law in 1863 that limited but did allow President Lincoln under certain circumstances to suspend habeus corpus. I did cite an article in the previous thread on Habeus corpus that discuses' that.
Leftyhunter
Thanks for your response.
Taney's written opinion clearly said that the President did not have the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and that the Constitution reserved that authority for the Congress.
The most that can be said is that given the circumstances (an ongoing rebellion), Taney refused to test the authority of the Judicial Branch.
To avoid confrontation, Taney was intentionally ambiguous. He was very careful to represent the opinion as given by the Supreme Court even though the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction. For example, he presented his opinion as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and initially ordered the opinion filed with the Supreme Court, later changing that order to file with the Circuit Court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top