Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: jmacusa; rustbucket; rockrr; TigerClaws
jmacusa: "So an article spelled out in the Constitution isn’t meant to do what it says?
Why is it there then and why did FDR do much the same in WW2?"

rusty's correct point is that (per Article 1, Section 9) only Congress has constitutional authority to suspend habeas corpus, not the President on his own authority.

At the time of Lincoln's first suspension of habeas corpus, April 27, 1861, the issue was riots and rebellion in Maryland -- exactly those envisioned by the Founders in the Constitution.
However, Congress was not in session at the time, so Lincoln acted on his own.
When Congress returned, it took up the question of authorizing Lincoln's actions, and eventually approved:

Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus in the Confederacy:

Without doubt, the constitutional power to suspend habeas corpus belongs to Congress, not the President.
However, on occasion, Congress has authorized the President to suspend habeas corpus on his own authority, notably in the Civil Rights act of 1871.

Today the right of habeas corpus is much in the news, regarding terrorists, but that's a whole other subject.

120 posted on 10/21/2012 12:59:12 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies ]


To: BroJoeK

Thanks for the clarification. However I note that Article 1 sec.9 refers to ‘’the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus’’, not ‘’the right of’’. It’s my understanding rights are immutable whereas a ‘’privilege’’ can be revoked.


121 posted on 10/21/2012 1:20:41 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]

To: BroJoeK; jmacusa
The Senate amended the bill,[16] and the compromise reported out of the conference committee altered it to remove the indemnity and to suspend habeas corpus on Congress's own authority.[17]

Thanks, BJK. I did not realize the indemnity had been removed.

It is my understanding that Jefferson Davis suspended habeas corpus only after receiving authority to do so from the Confederate Congress for various limited time periods.

FYI, here is a link to the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863: Link.

Section 4 of that Act instructs the courts that any order of the President during the existence of the rebellion shall be a defense from prosecution, criminal or civil.

Strictly speaking, Congress did not suspend the privilege, they merely passed the authority to do that to the President. I don't know whether one branch of government delegating to another branch of government something the first branch was responsible for under the Constitution is strictly correct under the Constitution. There is a term for that sort of delegation that I don't remember.

jmacusa, I'm not sure why the wording of Article I, Section 9 was left as ambiguous as it was. Perhaps they felt by its being in the Article that dealt with the powers of Congress, there was no need to specify that Section 9 dealt with a power of Congress.

123 posted on 10/21/2012 2:13:55 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]

To: BroJoeK
"In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law.[23] This was in part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession."

to spur industrial growth? What? One sentence in a wiki? What BS. As far as freedom of the press in the South the Richmond papers certainly didn't mince words of consternation of the wars progress.

129 posted on 10/22/2012 3:29:29 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson