Was the civil war constitutional

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
"As the case comes before me, therefore, I understand that the president not only claims the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus himself, at his discretion, but to delegate that discretionary power to a military officer, and to leave it to him to determine whether he will or will not obey judicial process that may be served upon him. No official notice has been given to the courts of justice, or to the public, by proclamation or otherwise, that the president claimed this power, and had exercised it in the manner stated in the return. And I certainly listened to it with some surprise, for I had supposed it to be one of those points of constitutional law upon which there was no difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands, that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended, except by act of congress."...

"it is the second article of the constitution that provides for the organization of the executive department, enumerates the powers conferred on it, and prescribes its duties. And if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article; but there is not a word in it that can furnish the slightest ground to justify the exercise of the power."
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
"As the case comes before me, therefore, I understand that the president not only claims the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus himself, at his discretion, but to delegate that discretionary power to a military officer, and to leave it to him to determine whether he will or will not obey judicial process that may be served upon him. No official notice has been given to the courts of justice, or to the public, by proclamation or otherwise, that the president claimed this power, and had exercised it in the manner stated in the return. And I certainly listened to it with some surprise, for I had supposed it to be one of those points of constitutional law upon which there was no difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands, that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended, except by act of congress."...

"it is the second article of the constitution that provides for the organization of the executive department, enumerates the powers conferred on it, and prescribes its duties. And if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article; but there is not a word in it that can furnish the slightest ground to justify the exercise of the power."
@Kelly ,

It would help if you stated who was making the above comments.

I assume this is Taney again, but would rather you clearly state it is.

Unionblue
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
@Kelly ,

It would help if you stated who was making the above comments.

I assume this is Taney again, but would rather you clearly state it is.

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.[
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Only according the the Constitution. Article II please.
Which you have provided no case or statutory law to support your assertion.
President Lincoln suffered no judicial or legislative repercussions for suspension of habeus corpus. You have provided nothing so far but your opinion.
Leftyhunter
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Which you have provided no case or statutory law to support your assertion.
President Lincoln suffered no judicial or legislative repercussions for suspension of habeus corpus. You have provided nothing so far but your opinion.
Leftyhunter
You have provided no constitutional text, none whatsoever, which supports the outrageous and empty claim that the president has the authority to suspend habeas corpus. Please show me the text of Article II, section 2, where this supposed power is given. All you have is your own wildly erroneous opinion.

"it is the second article of the constitution that provides for the organization of the executive department, enumerates the powers conferred on it, and prescribes its duties. And if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article; but there is not a word in it that can furnish the slightest ground to justify the exercise of the power."
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
The fact is that Lincoln lawlessly suspended habeus corpus on his own authority. Thats the fact.
Not hardly. In order to prove your point you need to cite statutory or case law.
You might want to read the following article which completely demolishes your arguments.
Perhaps other such has @Copperhead-mi @jgoodguy @ebg12 @O' Be Joyful might also enjoy this article
"Lincoln's Suspension of the writ of habeus corpus:an historical and Constitutional Analysis p.47 -66
https:quid.lub.umich.edu
James S.Dueholm
Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association
@Kelly you would have a better argument if you could failing to post any statutory or case law to support your assertion post at least a legal scholarly article to support your assertion.
Leftyhunter
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
You have provided no constitutional text, none whatsoever, which supports the outrageous and empty claim that the president has the authority to suspend habeas corpus. Please show me the text of Article II, section 2, where this supposed power is given. All you have is your own wildly erroneous opinion.

"it is the second article of the constitution that provides for the organization of the executive department, enumerates the powers conferred on it, and prescribes its duties. And if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article; but there is not a word in it that can furnish the slightest ground to justify the exercise of the power."
You haven't yet identified the author of the above opinion. If it is Taney it has been pointed out to you numerous times that Taney's opinion does not constitute the Supreme Courts opinion. Taney in the case of Ex Parte Merrymen was a Circuit Court judge. Other Supreme Court judges acting as Circuit Court judges disagreed with Taney.
It has been pointed out to you that Article 2 is irrelevant per the position taken by both Congress and the US Supreme Court during the ACW.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Not hardly. In order to prove your point you need to cite statutory or case law.
You might want to read the following article which completely demolishes your arguments.
Perhaps other such has @Copperhead-mi @jgoodguy @ebg12 @O' Be Joyful might also enjoy this article
"Lincoln's Suspension of the writ of habeus corpus:an historical and Constitutional Analysis p.47 -66
https:quid.lub.umich.edu
James S.Dueholm
Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association
@Kelly you would have a better argument if you could failing to post any statutory or case law to support your assertion post at least a legal scholarly article to support your assertion.
Leftyhunter

Not hardly. In order to prove your point you need to cite constitutional text. You have repeatedly failed to do so. And we both know that if could cite the Article II power, you would. Immediately. But you can't, so you dance, and bob, and weave, and distract, and divert.


And you might want to read the following constitutional scholars who utterly destroy and annihilate your feeble "arguments"

1. Chief Justice Roger Taney
2. Chief Justice John Marshall
3. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
4. Virginia Supreme Court Judge St. George Tucker
5. William Blcakstone
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
You haven't yet identified the author of the above opinion. If it is Taney it has been pointed out to you numerous that Taney's opinion does not constitute the Supreme Courts opinion. Taney in the case of Ex Parte Merrymen was a Circuit Court judge. Other Supreme Court judges acting as Circuit Court judges disagreed with Taney.
It has been pointed out to you that Article 2 is irrelevant per the position taken by both Congress and the US Supreme Court during the ACW.
Leftyhunter

"it is the second article of the constitution that provides for the organization of the executive department, enumerates the powers conferred on it, and prescribes its duties. And if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article; but there is not a word in it that can furnish the slightest ground to justify the exercise of the power."


PS- Show me the power in Article II.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
"it is the second article of the constitution that provides for the organization of the executive department, enumerates the powers conferred on it, and prescribes its duties. And if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article; but there is not a word in it that can furnish the slightest ground to justify the exercise of the power."


PS- Show me the power in Article II.
Article II is irrelevant. There is no judicial opinion that you can cite that prohibits the President from suspension if the Writ of habeus corpus. Congress did allow President Lincoln to suspend habeus corpus. The exact law is cited in the article citation that I just gave. Only a full panel of a Circuit Court of appeals or the Supreme Court can prevent a President from not being able to suspend habeus corpus.
Taney issued an opinion that was ignored and the US Supreme Court had no problem with Taney's opinion being ignored.
Leftyhunter
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Article II is irrelevant. There is no judicial opinion that you can cite that prohibits the President from suspension if the Writ of habeus corpus. Congress did allow President Lincoln to suspend habeus corpus. The exact law is cited in the article citation that I just gave. Only a full panel of a Circuit Court of appeals or the Supreme Court can prevent a President from not being able to suspend habeus corpus.
Taney issued an opinion that was ignored and the US Supreme Court had no problem with Taney's opinion being ignored.
Leftyhunter

The judicial opinions you cite are irrelevant, as is the "exact law" you cite. Now, show me where the president is granted the power under Article II to suspend habeas.

"it is the second article of the constitution that provides for the organization of the executive department, enumerates the powers conferred on it, and prescribes its duties. And if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article; but there is not a word in it that can furnish the slightest ground to justify the exercise of the power."


PS- Show me the power in Article II.
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Not hardly. In order to prove your point you need to cite constitutional text. You have repeatedly failed to do so. And we both know that if could cite the Article II power, you would. Immediately. But you can't, so you dance, and bob, and weave, and distract, and divert.
ahh, The Sounds of Silence. Ala, Simon & Garfunkel---both, very fine people as a matter of fact---BUT, still awaiting "so-called" evidence of your so-far...Opinion.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
ahh, The Sounds of Silence. Ala, Simon & Garfunkel---both, very fine people as a matter of fact---BUT, still awaiting "so-called" evidence of your so-far...Opinion.
ahh, The Sounds of Silence. Alas, Simon & Garfunkel---both, very fine people as a matter of fact---BUT, and a very big But it is, still awaiting "so-called" evidence of your so-far...Opinion. Just opinion.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Not hardly. In order to prove your point you need to cite statutory or case law.
You might want to read the following article which completely demolishes your arguments.
Perhaps other such has @Copperhead-mi @jgoodguy @ebg12 @O' Be Joyful might also enjoy this article
"Lincoln's Suspension of the writ of habeus corpus:an historical and Constitutional Analysis p.47 -66
https:quid.lub.umich.edu
James S.Dueholm
Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association
@Kelly you would have a better argument if you could failing to post any statutory or case law to support your assertion post at least a legal scholarly article to support your assertion.
Leftyhunter
New Article to read.:dance:
Lincoln's Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
Selective quoting. IMHO the only way to show Lincoln was wrong is to show that there is no legal controversy that he was wrong. Someone might squeeze by with a preponderance of the evidence. A personal interpretation AKA personal opinion of what the Constitution says is simply a personal opinion without evidence.

Several days later, Taney issued his opinion.[2] Only Congress, he said, could suspend the writ of habeas corpus. He observed that the limitation on suspension of the writ appeared in Article I of the Constitution, dealing with legislative powers, not in Article II, which established executive power. He explored the history of the writ of habeas corpus under English law, showing that the House of Commons had limited and then abolished the royal power to suspend the writ, leaving suspension in legislative hands. The Constitution, he said, embodied this English tradition. Article II, he asserted, gave the president very limited powers that were weakened further by the Bill of Rights. Finally, he cited eminent authority, noting that Chief Justice John Marshall, Thomas Jefferson, and Joseph Story, a luminary as both judge and scholar, had all acknowledged that the power to suspend was a congressional power.​
Lincoln ignored Taney, and that was the end of the federal judiciary's involvement with the suspension of habeas corpus. Neither the Supreme Court nor the lower federal courts dealt with the issue again. The action now passed to the president and Congress.​
If the courts are not going to adjudicate it, then it is a political question, not a legal one. The legality or illegality is essentially something that cannot be determined by historians.

On July 4, Lincoln delivered a message to the special session of Congress.[5] He referred to his suspensions of the writ, quoted the suspension clause, and justified the suspensions on the ground that "we have a case of rebellion, and the public safety does require" suspension of the writ. He then went on: "Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power. But the Constitution itself, is silent as to which, or who, is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed the framers of the instrument intended, that, in every case, the danger should run its course, until Congress could be called together; the very assembling of which might be prevented ... by the rebellion. No more extended argument is now offered, as an opinion ... will probably be presented by the Attorney General. Whether there shall be any legislation upon the subject, and if any, what, is submitted entirely to the better judgment of Congress."[6]
The promised opinion of Attorney General Edward Bates came the next day.[7] The opinion was devoted primarily to the president's power to make arrests without warrant, rather than to the suspension of habeas corpus. Bates argued that the president is authorized to suspend the writ because he is charged with preservation of the public safety, but he then concluded with his personal opinion that the power of suspension flows from the president's power to make warrantless arrests.​
It is logical that in the event of war some action has to be taken. Someone has to take it. If Congress is not in secession, the only political actor left is the president, the commander of the armed forces of the United States. If Lincoln was wrong, then the other political actor Congress would take action to remedy it. Sans such action, Lincoln's actions are Consitutitional.

The article has more interesting information deserving of its own thread. ,

I also see your post #235
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
"it is the second article of the constitution that provides for the organization of the executive department, enumerates the powers conferred on it, and prescribes its duties. And if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article; but there is not a word in it that can furnish the slightest ground to justify the exercise of the power."
"it is the second article of the constitution that provides for the organization of the executive department, enumerates the powers conferred on it, and prescribes its duties. And if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article; but there is not a word in it that can furnish the slightest ground to justify the exercise of the power."
"it is the second article of the constitution that provides for the organization of the executive department, enumerates the powers conferred on it, and prescribes its duties. And if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article; but there is not a word in it that can furnish the slightest ground to justify the exercise of the power."
Pardon, me for interjecting...but, this Looks familiar and repetitive.

It... almost seems...like, I have seen, this before. Hmmm...
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
:bounce: Here is the full text of Article II, section 2. Please show me the power to suspend habeas corpus. No kidding, just shout it right out when you see it:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

:bounce::wavespin::dance::showoff::rofl:
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Pardon, me for interjecting...but, this Looks familiar and repetitive.

It... almost seems...like, I have seen, this before. Hmmm...

Pardon me, but your comment looks irrelevant, vacuous, insipid, useless and, indeed, it looks like I have seen you before.

Hm...
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
The fact is Congress authorized the suspension of habeus corpus by the President in 1863 and had no issues with prior suspension of habeus corpus.
Leftyhunter

After all, someone in this thread stated numerous times that per Marbury v. Madison, Congress could not do that. SCOTUS must have been asleep at the wheel then and since.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top