Nonsense!
1. Taney ruled as a circuit court justice. The Supreme Court never heard the case. Until the full court hears a case the constitutionality is undecided.
2. Merriman (who was a major instigator) was released once the civil disorders in Maryland were ended.
3. Congress overwhelmingly affirmed each and every one of Lincoln's actions when they returned for the emergency session, making Taney's ruling moot and the case for impeachment beyond ridiculous.
I'd also remind you that the judicial branch does not have veto power over executive branch decisions. Only Congress has that power. Checks and Balances.
Not to beat a dead horse, but it seems that your view of events is that any action Lincoln took to defend the Union from forces that totally rejected the US Constitution was somehow by definition, unconstitutional. That's like saying I should be allowed to walk up and start beating the hell out of you but if you raise a hand to defend yourself, only you would be guilty of assault.
Your stand seems to be saying that the only Constitutional path Lincoln could have followed was to allow Washington to be overrun, the Union fractured, and the Constitution destroyed. That's just plain silly.
First, the constitutionality of who may suspend habeas corpus had already been decided several decades earlier by the Supreme Court in Bollman. As for this case, the ruling was the highest standing court decision on the matter upon its issue. If The Lincoln disputed it or wished not to follow it, he had to appeal it to the full supreme court. He refused to do so and instead simply ignored it. That in itself is a violation of the judicial process by The Lincoln.
2. Merriman (who was a major instigator) was released once the civil disorders in Maryland were ended.
That is irrelevant and unknown to the case while it was pending. Nor does it excuse or right the constitutional violation committed in the suspension itself.
3. Congress overwhelmingly affirmed each and every one of Lincoln's actions when they returned for the emergency session, making Taney's ruling moot and the case for impeachment beyond ridiculous.
Congress is not the arbiter of the Constitution and does not decide the constitutionality of the executive's act. As you are probably aware, the Congress acts unconstitutionally itself on a regular basis to this day. That they consented to an already-committed unconstitutional act in late 1861 in no way makes that act constitutional as it is not their call to make.
I'd also remind you that the judicial branch does not have veto power over executive branch decisions.
Nor has anyone asserted that it did. The court may, however, strike down an executive action when that action is in violation of the constitution, such as executive suspension of habeas corpus.
Only Congress has that power. Checks and Balances.
The legislative veto was struck down by INS v. Chadha.
Not to beat a dead horse, but it seems that your view of events is that any action Lincoln took to defend the Union from forces that totally rejected the US Constitution was somehow by definition, unconstitutional.
May I ask for source of that view of yours, as I have only cited The Lincoln for the tangible unconstitutional actions of suspending habeas corpus and ignoring the judicial system's ruling that said doing so was not constitutional. Try again.
Sigh. There's a reason for lower courts - every case does not go to SCOTUS. If a party disagrees with a lower court ruling, it may appeal. Maybe SCOTUS will hear it - but until then it is Constitutional.