Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
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?
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
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
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
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
I think I would give a zillion dollars to the person who could find a credible pre-1861 source who held that the president had the authority to suspend habeas corpus.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Millions of blacks did move out if the South. On the other hand why was it necessary for Southern whites to terrorize black people for so long?
Leftyhunter
Millions..?? When did that happen ? :unsure:

map_nhblack.gif


http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.html
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
That's a great source. It's shows very clearly and explicitly that the power to suspend Habeas Corpus is carefully enumerated in Article II, section 2. It's a must read.
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Wrong thread. Plenty other threads here for Your subject.
Its not when human rights are concerned. Not when someone in any post claims that black people were "supposedly terrorized" after the civil war! Then its your duty to respond!
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
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
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

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
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
Top