Poll - Suspending the Writ

[Drew]

That is incorrect. Only civilians who would be tried in State or Federal courts had to be listed and presented

It is correct insofar as we are talking civilians here, not combatants. I've not nor will I invoke armed, uniformed soldiers of the CSA in this discussion. You shouldn't, either.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Brass, end the Round Robbin by showing us where the Constitution authorizes the Executive to suspend the Writ?

It is apparent that you're a stickler when it comes to this subject and the interpretations of others matter not to you so I'll go one better. Show me anything in the Constitution that allows the suspension of the Writ.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

It is correct insofar as we are talking civilians here, not combatants. I've not nor will I invoke armed, uniformed soldiers of the CSA in this discussion. You shouldn't, either.

I didn't. Please reread what I posted.

 

[Drew]

Suspending the writ of habeas corpus is not a legislative power unless it is codified in law, which Lincoln did not do.

Oh, but it is a legislative power, delineated in Article I of the Constitution. Brass, anything "codified in law" means that Congress has acted and that the Executive has acquiesced. If the Executive doesn't acquiesce, Congress may over rule him by a two thirds majority vote. That's in the Constitution and happens from time to time even today.

Your statement indicates something that "Lincoln did not do." No president has the power or authority to codify in law anything. Congress does that, the president agrees or he doesn't and sometimes when he doesn't, he gets over ruled. Your statement makes no sense.

 

[brass napoleon]

...No president has the power or authority to codify in law anything. Congress does that, the president agrees or he doesn't and sometimes when he doesn't, he gets over ruled. Your statement makes no sense.

Yes, no President has the authority to codify anything into law. But that rule didn't just drop out of the sky. That's what Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution is all about. And that's ALL that it's about. It restricts the President from codifying laws and leaves that entirely to Congress. It does NOT restrict the President from executive actions like suspending the writ of habeas corpus.

 

[huskerblitz]

Can you post some examples of these so we can get an idea exactly who these people were and what they were complaining about?

I'd have to go back and relocate them. I was searching for information not related to the writ but seen while glancing for other information. I used Chronicling America site. If I get a chance later today I will go back and see what I can find.

 

[Drew]

Show me anything in the Constitution that allows the suspension of the Writ.

Article I, Section I: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Article I, Section IX: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Article II of the United States Constitution delineates the authority of the Executive. Nothing there about suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

 

[Drew]

The idea that it's unconstitutional is promoted mostly by people who prefer that Lincoln's side would lose,

Brass, I'm just noticing this. I think it's gratuitous and its incumbent upon you to provide sources. I've stated flatly in these forums that we are all, every one of us, better off for the outcome of the American Civil War. I'd like to see who has said differently and that the person who may "prefer that Lincoln's side would lose" has expressed concern over suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Thanks in advance.

 

[brass napoleon]

Brass, I'm just noticing this. I think it's gratuitous and its incumbent upon you to provide sources. I've stated flatly in these forums that we are all, every one of us, better off for the outcome of the American Civil War. I'd like to see who has said differently and that the person who may "prefer that Lincoln's side would lose" has expressed concern over suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Thanks in advance.

Drew, I said "mostly". I did not imply, or mean to imply, that anyone on this thread would prefer that the Union lost. Nevertheless, there are certainly people at this forum who would prefer that the Confederacy won, and who are quite vocal about their belief that Lincoln acted unconstitutionally. I am not going to name their names here. But I will give you some very well-known, vociferous, and staunch advocates of Southern secession who are very vocal about Lincoln and the writ of habeas corpus:

Thomas DiLorenzo:

let's review DiLorenzo's findings. He makes about 71 discrete factual, legal, political, or moral accusations or allegations against or about Lincoln or his subordinates as follows:
...
25. Conjuring up a specious and deceptive argument against the historically-recognized right of state secession.
...
34. Illegally suspending habeas corpus...

Source: http://mises.org/etexts/ostrowski.asp

The Kennedy brothers:

Now let us look at the Yankee myth of Lincoln the protector of liberty. The dictatorial power of Lincoln is evidenced when he suspended the writ of habeas corpus and then moved to silence his critics in the North not in the South. (At that time Southerners were governed by one who was governing with the consent of the governed - what a novel idea! Perhaps we should try it again.)

- James Ronald Kennedy, The South was Right, p. 28

Each of them have thousands and thousands of followers who believe that "perhaps we should try it again" and that Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was "illegal" and "dictatorial". While I do not doubt for a second that there are people who agree with them on the habeas corpus issue but disagree with them on the secession issue, I don't think their numbers are anywhere near the numbers of the DiLorenzo and Kennedy stalwarts. But if you can show me where such a large body of people exist, I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Article I, Section I: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Article I, Section IX: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Article II of the United States Constitution delineates the authority of the Executive. Nothing there about suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

The Writ cannot be suspended by any branch according to Article I, Section IX nor did Lincoln ever suspend the Writ; judges were free to write and issue Writs of Habeas Corpus all day long.

 

[Drew]

Drew, I said "mostly". I did not imply, or mean to imply, that anyone on this thread would prefer that the Union lost.

This is a lot of material - thanks for posting. I'll read it and respond, probably not this evening.

 

[Drew]

The Writ cannot be suspended by any branch according to Article I, Section IX nor did Lincoln ever suspend the Writ;

Wait, Lincoln never suspended the Writ? OMG, we are now in weird territory.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Wait, Lincoln never suspended the Writ? OMG, we are now in weird territory.

That's right...he never suspended the Writ. No weird territory.