Was the civil war constitutional

[Kelly]

Again the Congress did not have a problem with President Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus early in the war. In 1863 Congress restricted but in no war prohibited the President from suspending habeus corpus nor has the current Congress.
Leftyhunter

And again, Chief Justice Taney, Attorney Bates, Chief Justice Marshall, Supreme Court Justice Story all flatly repudiate the foul idea that the president can suspend Habeas Corpus.

 

[leftyhunter]

Good point, but let's stick to the nineteenth century, please.

I know but it was to tempting.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

And again, Chief Justice Taney, Attorney Bates, Chief Justice Marshall, Supreme Court Justice Story all flatly repudiate the foul idea that the president can suspend Habeas Corpus.

Which does not constitute a judicial decision. Again judicial decisions require a full panel unless the US Supreme Court or a Circuit Court of appeals does not wish to overturn a judicial decision proscribing Presidential authority.
Leftyhunter

 

[Kelly]

I didn't include Rawle, but it was soooo tempting.

 

[leftyhunter]

Also, haven't you apparently hven't heard of Ex Parte Bollmand and Chief Justice Marshall?

Apparently Congress could care less about those two decisions both in the ACW and even today. Ditto the US Supreme Court.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

And again, Chief Justice Taney, Attorney Bates, Chief Justice Marshall, Supreme Court Justice Story all flatly repudiate the foul idea that the president can suspend Habeas Corpus.

If you actually read Bates opinion in no way did he state the President can not suspend habeus corpus.
Leftyhunter

 

[Kelly]

Apparently Congress could care less about those two decisions both in the ACW and even today. Ditto the US Supreme Court.


Evidently indeed. Nor did they care about the Constitution. Like a true lawless dicatator, guns, knives, bombs, and raw, unfettered violence is how Lincoln resolved constitutional disputes. More's the pity.

 

[jgoodguy]

Bates opinion väs Insipid!! Not, to mention inconsequential.

On topic please.

 

[Kelly]

If you actually read Bates opinion in no way did he state the President can not suspend habeus corpus.
Leftyhunter[/QUOTE


If you actually read Taney's opinion, you would see that he utterly repudiated the idea that the president can suspend habeas corpus. As dd Marshall and Story.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

Said Bates:

"If by the phrase the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, we must understand a repeal of all power to issue the writ, then I freely admit that none but Congress can do it."

A well known and simple cwt request, source please?

Additional request, Please Stop Waving. Not Interested.

 

[jgoodguy]

If you actually read Bates opinion in no way did he state the President can not suspend habeus corpus.Leftyhunter

If by the phrase “the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas​

corpus” we must understand a repeal of all power to issue the writ,​

then I freely admit that none but Congress can do it. But if we are​

at liberty to understand the phrase to mean that in case of a great​

and dangerous rebellion like the present the public safety requires​

the arrest and confinement of persons implicated in that rebellion, I​

as freely declare the opinion that the President has lawful power to​

suspend the privilege of persons arrested under such circumstances;​

for he is especially charged by the Constitution with the “public​

safety,” and he is the sole judge of the emergency which requires his​

prompt action.​

 

[jgoodguy]

A well known and simple cwt request, source please?

Additional request, Please Stop Waving. Not Interested.

Brevity is a very good idea.

 

[Kelly]

Which does not constitute a judicial decision. Again judicial decisions require a full panel unless the US Supreme Court or a Circuit Court of appeals does not wish to overturn a judicial decision proscribing Presidential authority.
Leftyhunter

Agreed. Bates worthless opinion does not constitute a judicial opinion or law of any kind. Let's get rid of that worthless trash. It has no place in the discussion.

 

[Kelly]

If by the phrase “the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas​

corpus” we must understand a repeal of all power to issue the writ,​

then I freely admit that none but Congress can do it. But if we are​

at liberty to understand the phrase to mean that in case of a great​

and dangerous rebellion like the present the public safety requires​

the arrest and confinement of persons implicated in that rebellion, I​

as freely declare the opinion that the President has lawful power to​

suspend the privilege of persons arrested under such circumstances;​

for he is especially charged by the Constitution with the “public​

safety,” and he is the sole judge of the emergency which requires his​

prompt action.​

As we just agreed, Bates' scribbling are worthless and are not law. So again, let's throw out that worthless trash.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

If you actually read Bates opinion in no way did he state the President can not suspend habeus corpus.
Leftyhunter

That was the first NOT insipid point made in a long time. As well..as not robotic...lefty.

Let's make a bet... how long before part of this is robot repeat-ed?

 

[jgoodguy]

Agreed. Bates worthless opinion does not constitute a judicial opinion or law of any kind. Let's get rid of that worthless trash. It has no place in the discussion.

Let be brief, please by leaving out provocative adjectives.

 

[Kelly]

That was the first NOT insipid point made in a long time. As well..as not robotic...lefty.

Hey I know, let's make a bet... how long before part of this is robot repeat-ed?

That was the first NOT insipid point made in a long time. As well..as not robotic...lefty.

Let's make a bet... how long before part of this is robot repeat-ed?

 

[leftyhunter]

That was the first NOT insipid point made in a long time. As well..as not robotic...lefty.

Let's make a bet... how long before part of this is robot repeat-ed?

Sooner the peace in he Middle East.
Leftyhunter

 

[unionblue]

"these great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.[

@Kelly ,

Again, WHO said this? What is your source for the above?

Or don't you know?

Unionblue

 

[jgoodguy]

As we just agreed, Bates' scribbling are worthless and are not law. So again, let's throw out that worthless trash.

That is not for you to determine, but the audience of this debate.
Do you have any evidence?

 

[Kelly]

@Kelly ,

Again, WHO said this? What is your source for the above?

Or don't you know?

Unionblue

Again, does your computer have a search engine? Or don't you know how to use it?