From the essay, here is how YOUR SOURCE describes the case:
"When the Jefferson Administration completed its first term in office, Vice President Aaron Burr (who had been indicted in New York and New Jersey for murder as a result of having killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel) found it prudent to travel west. There, he allegedly conspired with others to separate some of this country's newly acquired western territories from their allegiance to the United States. Among his alleged co-conspirators were Samuel Swartwout and Dr. Erick Bollman. In December, 1806, they were seized by General James Wilkinson, the American Army commander in New Orleans (who was himself heavily and discreditably involved in the alleged events). 'Both men were denied counsel and access to the courts and sent by warship' to Baltimore via Charleston--in defiance of writs of habeas corpus granted by territorial judges in New Orleans and a District Judge in Charleston.
"They arrived in Washington on Friday, January 23, 1807; '[t]hat afternoon, to ensure that the prisoners would not be freed with another writ of habeas corpus, Senator William Branch Giles introduced legislation to suspend the writ for three months . . . legalize Wilkinson's arrest of Bollman and Swartwout and to keep the pair in confinement.' Meeting in closed session, the Senate passed the measure with only a single dissenting vote, but by Monday, January 23, the atmosphere had cooled, and the House by a vote of 113-19 bluntly rejected the proposal as unworthy of consideration.
"On the following day, the United States attorney moved the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia for an arrest warrant in order to have the pair committed to stand trial on a charge of treason. A divided bench granted the motion.
"The prisoners then applied to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. As Justices Johnson and Chase expressed doubts as to the Court's jurisdiction, Chief Justice Marshall set that preliminary question down for full argument. 'Interest in the argument that followed was at fever pitch, almost the whole of Congress being in attendance.'"
You conveniently "forget" that the issue being discussed at that time was whether the President had the constitutional right to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Some of the neo-reb posters quoted dicta from Bollman as "proof" that only Congress could suspend the writ.
I pointed out, as did other posters, that the suspension of the writ was not an issue in Bollman, therefore Marshall's comments made in passing are not authoritative. Nor is the issue in Bollman (treason) analogous to the exigencies of early 1861.
Freeman correctly points out, as did Levy, and as did several other posters, that Bollman was about whether the two principles could be tried for treason. Habeas was a side issue.
What is so assinine is that you think it matters whether Law Professor Freedman spends three chapters of his book on HABEAS CORPUS making valid or invalid points about Bollman.
capitan_refugio #237 8/29/2004 to GOPcap argued that "Bollman was not about habeas corpus...."
YOU said Bollman was not about habeas corpus. A law professor spent three chapters of a book about habeas corpus on Bollman.
Whether his points were valid or not, you are busted.
You can render your arcane interpretations of all the philosophers and historians you want. Quote any recognized legal authority saying Bollman is not about habeas corpus.
Your mind's in a trance
And you've just been depantsed,
And you're busted...
You're busted.