Posted on 11/13/2004 11:12:00 AM PST by LouAvul
You are full of crap.
The court retains jurisdiction of the case, even during a proper, lawful suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It is NOT the WRIT that is suspended, but only the privilege flowing from it. The writ still issues and the responsible official is still lawfully required to make a return of the writ.
My source of authrority is the UNANIMOUS decision of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT in EX PARTE MILLIGAN.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not suspend the writ itself. The writ issues as a matter of course; and on the return made to it the court decides whether the party applying is denied the right of proceeding any further with it.
Add another LIE to capitan's voluminous history of same. You were caught repeatedly on the same thread, not across 5,000 posts.
Deal with it. LIAR.
[cr to 4CJ #1804 on late, great deleted thread (Confederate Constitution to be unveiled for holiday") "I worked for him in the 1976 primary campaign and in the 1980 campaign while I was in college. By 1984, I was prohibited from participating in partisan political campaigns, by the Hatch Act."
[cr #412] I worked in the Reagan Administration. I worked in Reagan's campaigns in 1976, 1980, and 1984.
There you go again, capitan, affirming the consequent to reach a conclusion that you have not demonstrated and that is accordingly a logical falsehood. Since the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the court its jurisdiction on habeas corpus, the ONLY way to remove that jurisdiction is through the same Judiciary Act of 1789 - it must be repealed, altered, or otherwise suspended, and, excepting the case of a court ruling on unconstitutionality, only an act of Congress can do that to a standing statute of Congress. You have provided absolutely no evidence that Congress passed any such act prior to 1863, thus in 1861 (when Lincoln arrested the process of a sitting federal court and unconstitutionally harassed its members) habeas corpus simply had not been constitutionally suspended.
Who again, is your authoritative source?
Judge Dunlop, who authored the ruling against Lincoln.
List for me the felonies (high crimes) SOUTHERNERS committed. Where are the criminal charges?
Interesting choice of words on Rhenquist's part.
Ad hominems in code are still pretty base.
posting the claim the slave ships were "protected" by the US flag attempting to deceive one into believing it was the policy of the US government to protect slavers' ships.
Slave ships were "protected" by the US flag, to the extend that foreign slave ships would fly the stars and stripes when the saw an approaching vessel in order to prevent boarding and inspection. Most of the discussion revolving around the inability to board and inspect revolves around the slave trade, but I'd be willing to listen to other alternative explanations. Certainly your continued assumption that it was driven by the need for Southern labor expansion falls flat when you consider where the human cargo was offloaded; it appears as though money interests dominated the continued illegal trade and as such, equal guilt can be dished to both Northern slavers and investors and the Southern counterparts who were willingly complicit in allowing it's continuance.
Desperate to make others believe the fantasy that the Northern anti-slavers were just as bad as the southern slavers they regularly resort to such nonsense.
It is not nonsense, as has been posted. Slavers used (abused) the stars and stripes to protect their human cargo as has been indicated. Calling it nonsense is a weak rebuttal.
In their wisdom, the victorious Northerners chose to pass the 14th Amendment which provided for a legislative penalty for traitorous southern conduct - fundamentally a disqualification to hold any position of trust. It was too easy on them, in my opinion, but that is the route that was taken, politically.
Judge Dunlop did not have jurisdiction. Habeas had been suspended.
"You have provided absolutely no evidence that Congress passed any such act prior to 1863..."
The Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 retrospecively ratified the President's actions. It did not say that they were illegal. The Congress and the Executive agreed that the President's actions were necessary. That leaves a few judges on the outside, looking in.
I suggest to try mineral oil to relieve that blockage of yours.
Being called a "liar" by the likes of you is hilarous.
edit - hilarious
False affirmation of the consequent. Try again.
The Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 retrospecively ratified the President's actions.
...and that act was not in effect as of October 30, 1861 - the approximate time of the Murphy case. Try again.
Sorry, Lincoln's actions is suspending the privilege of the writ were both constitutional and necessary. The Constitution provides the reasons for suspending the writ. That situation existed when Lincoln necessarily acted. Rather than condemn his actions, the Congress backed him up. Lincoln's actions were heroic and saved the Union.
"To the contrary, by an In-Chambers Opinion of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional rapist known as the Great Usurper Abraham Lincoln was speicifcally given chapter and verse of the history of the law and informed precisely and specifically how and why he was in violation of the Constitution."
Taney was a southern partisan. He should have recused himself from sitting on the case of a friend and neighbor. When informed that he had no further power to act on the habeas petition, he went into a tirade. Big deal.
Bingo
You have a very thoughtful and probably the best grip on the article and GWTW.
It has been tried in myriad conditions, everything from American-style freedom to totalitarianism. It has never worked. At some point, a reasonable person would indicate that sufficient data exists with diverse enough initial conditions that they would declare it a failure.
Of course, requiring experimental data is a denial of other verification methodologies. People like test data because it's real but in cases where it's impossible to retrieve meaningful test data on an independent variable, inspection, demonstration, and analysis suffice to demonstrate the point. In this case, inspection and analysis suffice, since interjection of a third party cannot possibly come at zero cost.
Of course then, there is always a religious argument based on first principles: Any system controlled by a few power-elite subject to the evils of human nature is by definition rife with corruption. As you stated in a previous argument, it's beyond mortal control. You can curse God for making us that way (a practice I do not recommend), or admit that Hamilton was a man, and could not possibly have done what you ascribe him.
And unsubstantiated and gratuitous claim.
The Constitution provides the reasons for suspending the writ.
...yet only gives the suspension power to Congress.
That situation existed when Lincoln necessarily acted.
There's nothing necessary about it. Lincoln chose to suspend the writ out of convenience.
Rather than condemn his actions, the Congress backed him up.
Another filthy lie from the filthy liar. Congress soundly rejected Lincoln's habeas corpus suspension bill later that year and would not pass one for another two years.
Taney was a southern partisan.
Argumentum ad hominem.
He should have recused himself from sitting on the case of a friend and neighbor.
Unproven and unsubstantiated innuendo.
When informed that he had no further power to act on the habeas petition, he went into a tirade.
Unsubstantiated claim built upon a faulty affirmation of the consequent.
One requires indemnity for legal action?
In their wisdom, the victorious Northerners chose to pass the 14th Amendment which provided for a legislative penalty for traitorous southern conduct - fundamentally a disqualification to hold any position of trust. It was too easy on them, in my opinion, but that is the route that was taken, politically.
ROTFLMC*O!!!! Ever read Article I §9 clause 3 of the Constitution, where it enumerates a prohibition againt ex post facto legislation, and against Bills of Attainder?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.