View single post by indy19th
 Posted: Wed Aug 9th, 2006 02:34 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
indy19th
$user_title
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Shadowrebel wrote: Indy,

I am not a lawyer either. You are right in stating that ex post facto is after the fact. Nowhere I can find in the Constitution does the President have the right to suspend habeas only Congress. The Congress giving its' blessing to an illegal act, IMO, does not make it legel. If anyone can show me in the Constitution the President can suspend habeas as he did in Maryland, as Taney ruled he could not, I will consider changing my view.:D

Regards,

Shadowrebel


If anyone can show me that states could unilaterally secede from the union and also that a confederation of states in rebellion could seize gov't property and smuggle federal munitions into states in rebellion and fire shots in anger at federal installations, I might consider changing my view as well. :)

But here's a little more on habeas:


...WHEN MERRYMAN FILED HIS REQUEST WITH HIS LOCAL CIRCUIT JUDGE, HE WENT TO NONE OTHER THAN ROGER TANEY, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

10 WHEN HE RECEIVED MERRYMAN'S PETITION, TANEY ORDERED THE COMMANDER OF FORT 11 INSTEAD OF SENDING MERRYMAN, THE COLONEL SENT BACK AN AIDE BEARING A POLITE MESSAGE. THE PRESIDENT HAD AUTHORIZED THE COLONEL, IN THIS TIME OF WAR, TO SUSPEND THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. MERRYMAN WOULD STAY AT FORT MCHENRY. THIS, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, INCENSED THE CHIEF 12

LINCOLN DID NOT PUBLICLY RESPOND TO TANEY'S OPINION UNTIL CONGRESS MET A MONTH LATER, ON JULY 4. LINCOLN SAID THAT, HAD HE NOT SUSPENDED HABEAS CORPUS IMMEDIATELY, WASHINGTON ITSELF MIGHT NOW BE IN SOUTHERN HANDS. THAT, OF COURSE, WOULD HAVE PREVENTED CONGRESS FROM MEETING, LET ALONE FROM RESPONDING TO THE REBELLION. LINCOLN THEN TOOK AIM AT TANEY'S CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT'S JOB WAS TO SIT BACK AND ENSURE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED, EVEN IN THE FACE OF MERRYMAN'S RECRUITING SOLDIERS FOR THE CONFEDERATE CAUSE. IN THE CONFEDERACY, FULLY ONE-THIRD OF THE COUNTRY, THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF WAS BEING IGNORED. SHOULD LINCOLN'S HANDS BE TIED BY THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN SUCH A NATIONAL EMERGENCY? HE ASKED:

"13

MERRYMAN STAYED IN JAIL. NOW, MERRYMAN WAS ONLY ONE OF MANY PEOPLE ARRESTED, WITHOUT BENEFIT OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF, IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE WAR FOR PROVIDING MILITARY AID TO THE YOUNG CONFEDERACY. LINCOLN LATER14

SCHOLARS STILL DEBATE WHETHER LINCOLN HAD AUTHORITY TO INVOKE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION SUSPENDING HABEAS CORPUS DURING THE EARLY DAYS OF THE WAR. I WILL NOT WADE INTO THE MUDDY WATERS OF THAT DEBATE. I AM MORE INTERESTED IN TALKING ABOUT WHAT LINCOLN DID AFTER MARCH OF 1863--FOR THAT IS WHEN CONGRESS GAVE LINCOLN LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND THE WRIT. FROM THAT POINT FORWARD, LINCOLN FACED NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBSTACLES. HE: COULD ARREST WHOMEVER HE CHOSE, WITHOUT COURTS INTERFERING WITH WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS. WHAT DID LINCOLN DO AT THIS POINT? DID HE ATTEMPT TO STIFLE POL1TICAL DEBATE, BY IMPRISONING HIS OPPONENTS? IN SHORT, DID HE TRAMPLE ON THE CIVIL LIBERTIES THAT THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS MEANT TO PROTECT?

A RECENT HISTORICAL STUDY, ENTITLED THE FATE OF LIBERTY, SAYS "NO." THE AUTHOR, MARK NEELY, COMBED THROUGH THE 15 NEELY CONCLUDES THAT, THROUGHOUT THE WAR, LINCOLN WAS GUIDED BY A "STEADY DESIRE TO AVOID POLITICAL ABUSE UNDER THE HABEAS-CORPUS POLICY.''16...


http://www.gdg.org/Research/Monuments/oconnor.html

BTW, who wrote this? Sandra Day O'Connor. Her name might sound a little familiar.


 

 Close Window