The Chief executive making legislative decisions is a bad idea - the Founders knew that.
The Chief executive making legislative decisions is a bad idea - the Founders knew that.
Suspending the Writ doesn't fall into that category.
From the Prize Cases majority opinion (1862):
"....By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare war against a State, or any number of States, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is 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 has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But, by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States."
The sesesh wanted some sort of nirvana not encompassed within the human experience. That is one reason they were thrown down in defeat and ignominious disgrace.
Walt
If you think that somehow applies to the events of the Spring of 1861, you best read the Militia Act of 1795 where the Congress gave the President the authority to do exactly what Lincoln did.
It seems the neo-rebs biggest complaint against Lincoln was that he simply didn't roll over and play dead, but instead used the tools given him by the Congress and the Constitution to crush treason.