“The Constitution allows for suspension of civil rights in case of invasion or rebellion.” - SL
Whoa there big fella...not “civil rights”, only habeas corpus. Now I see why you like Lincoln so much.
The writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, except in rebellion or invasion. Lincoln did more than arrest people without cause, he shut down newspapers.
That is more than habeas corpus, he violated explicit constitutional civil rights.
Not Allowed!
Sorry, I referred to the wrong concept. The justification for Lincoln’s actions was martial law, not suspension of habeas corpus, though B is included in A.
Re: Ex parte Milligan, decided after the war.
No, the Court said. The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it: When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: “If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war.”
Note the court did not decide all Lincoln’s actions under martial law were unjustified, only those outside the immediate area of military operations. This had not been settled law until this Supreme Court decision.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html