Posted on 11/13/2004 11:12:00 AM PST by LouAvul
....snip......
Based on Margaret Mitchell's hugely popular novel, producer David O. Selznick's four-hour epic tale of the American South during slavery, the Civil War and Reconstruction is the all-time box-office champion.
.......snip........
Considering its financial success and critical acclaim, "Gone With the Wind" may be the most famous movie ever made.
It's also a lie.
......snip.........
Along with D.W. Griffith's technically innovative but ethically reprehensible "The Birth of a Nation" (from 1915), which portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as heroic, "GWTW" presents a picture of the pre-Civil War South in which slavery is a noble institution and slaves are content with their status.
Furthermore, it puts forth an image of Reconstruction as one in which freed blacks, the occupying Union army, Southern "scalawags" and Northern "carpetbaggers" inflict great harm on the defeated South, which is saved - along with the honor of Southern womanhood - by the bravery of KKK-like vigilantes.
To his credit, Selznick did eliminate some of the most egregious racism in Mitchell's novel, including the frequent use of the N-word, and downplayed the role of the KKK, compared with "Birth of a Nation," by showing no hooded vigilantes.
......snip.........
One can say that "GWTW" was a product of its times, when racial segregation was still the law of the South and a common practice in the North, and shouldn't be judged by today's political and moral standards. And it's true that most historical scholarship prior to the 1950s, like the movie, also portrayed slavery as a relatively benign institution and Reconstruction as unequivocally evil.
.....snip.........
Or as William L. Patterson of the Chicago Defender succinctly wrote: "('Gone With the Wind' is a) weapon of terror against black America."
(Excerpt) Read more at sacticket.com ...
And I suppose you have an address for this Baltimore residence of Merryman? Or did you pull that one out of your ass as well?
The operative word there being "county."
And, of course Merryman was an officer (1st Lt.) in the Baltimore County Horse Guards.
Which is supposed to prove exactly what about his residence?
John Merryman has plenty of connections to Baltimore
You did not assert that he simply had "connections" in Baltimore. You asserted that he was a neighbor of Roger Taney and that is a patent falsehood.
If you don't think Taney knew Merryman, you are deluding yourself.
First, you've provided absolutely no evidence of that. Second, your original contention was not that Taney simply knew Merryman but rather that they were neighbors - a claim that is patently false. But you, of course, are a filthy liar who cannot and will not ever admit to a wrong even when you've been caught in a corner with no escape. Thus you remain incorrigible and thus you persist to lie about your previous lies.
When you get on one of your ignorant, insane rants, I find that it is impossible to insult either your intelligence or your integrity, but I can always just post some truth about the ruthless dictator known as the Great Usurper. And then I get to hear you go "yip, yip, yip," and say "yo quiero Taco Bell," just like a little ankle-biting chihuahua.
A pitifully lame attempt to protect your fib if there ever was one. The bottom line is that Merryman lived in Cockeysville and Taney in Washington, therefore they were not neighbors as you dishonestly asserted.
Nor have you provided ANY evidence to support the latest claim you pulled out of your ass, viz. that Merryman had some sort of unnamed and unknown house next to Taney's daughter's home in Baltimore.
In short you've got nothing but your web of lies, deceit, and unsubstantiated falsehoods. Now you can wallow in them.
It is the proud boast of our democracy that we have "a government of laws and not of men." Many Americans are familiar with that phrase; not many know its derivation. It comes from Part the First, Article XXX, of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which reads in full as follows:
"In the government of this Commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."The Framers of the Federal Constitution similarly viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government. In No. 47 of The Federalist, Madison wrote that "[n]o political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty." The Federalist No. 47, p. 301 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (hereinafter Federalist). Without a secure structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be worthless, as are the bills of rights of many nations of the world that have adopted, or even improved upon, the mere words of ours.
Nope, the rays of the Blue State Brigade exist only as a form of Blue State cultural aura. Such rays are not able to penetrate Red states.
A union where the rule of law takes a backseat.
I could feel the contempt oozing from your words. There's only one problem with your "inflexible" thinking. As Farber notes,
"[T]he Constitution itself allows deviations from ordinary rules in wars and other emergencies.... [T]he President can call upon broad, though not unlimited, power to protect the federal government and its operations. In the theater of war, the Constitution contemplates replacement of the normal legal regine by the laws of war and expanded military authority even over civilians. And deference to the courts has its limits, particularly after the power to suspend habeas corpus is invoked." (pg 24)
Wars are fought to be won. Lincoln knew that, and fought the ACW accordingly. There was no "essential liberty" present at the beginning of the war, that wasn't also present at the end of the war.
Things look different from inside the insane asylum, don't they? At least you are good for a chuckle.
I don't have to prove a statement made in a newspaper over 140 years ago. The Chief Justice thought enough of the passage to quote it, when he could have used any of hundreds of other accounts. I am satisfied that Taney was guilty of both poor legal judgment and likely misconduct in the Merryman affair. Rehnquist as much as says it too. Fehrenbacher also said it about Taney in Dred Scott. You may disagree; that is your right. But don't expect me to swallow your pathetic attempts of "proof" or your whining. Neither are persuasive.
[nc] "Baltimore was not "home" to Chief Justice Taney."
[capitan_kerryfugio #2149] Refutable lie, by your own post. Taney lived in Baltimore from 1823 to 1855 (when his wife, the sister of Francis Scott Key, died). He was a leading lawyer in Baltimore in the early 1820's, before being named as Att. Gen of Md.
We know that Merryman was not Taney's neighbor in 1823, because Merryman had not been born yet. One assumes the purported friendship had to wait at least until Merryman was out of diapers.
We know that at the time of the Merryman proceedings, Taney lived in Washington, D.C. at 23 Blagden's Row.
We know that he only stayed in his daughter's house in Maryland on occasion.
Baltimore was not "home" to Taney. When he died, he was taken to Frederick, the services were held there, and he was buried there.
[nc] "Your attempts to falsely claim that Taney and Merryman were "neighbors" because Taney sometimes stayed at his daughter's house, 23 MILES FROM MERRYMAN'S HOME, are comical."
[capitan_refugio #2149 mindlessly blathering] You and your buddies are such amateurs when it comes to being sleuths. The Merryman family estate, Hayfields (now site of the Hayfields Country Club), was indeed near Sherwood, MD. John Merryman inherited the main property in 1847. That, however does not preclude John Merryman from also having a residence in Baltimore. In fact, just a few minutes of searching showed that Baltimore was crawling with Merrymans. They were a very prominent family in the area.
Oh wow. People with the same last name lived in or near Baltimore. The Official Record documents that the Merryman in this case was arrested in his home near Cockeysville and taken by train to Baltimore City.
[capitan_kerryfugio #2149 displaying Blue State insanity] Just a little more searching shows another connection. A number of members of the Merryman family were married or buried at old St. Pauls in Baltimore (John the traitor was not one of these - he is planted in Sherwood). The Keys were also members of old St. Pauls too. Although Roger B. was a Catholic, his wife was not - she evidently stayed an Anglican. Her brother, Francis Scott Key, was buried at the cemetery there (before he was dug up and moved).
The Official Record documents that the Merryman in this case was arrested in his home near Cockeysville and taken by train to Baltimore City. Having dead people with the same last name buried in Baltimore does not make Merryman either a "neighbor" of Taney or the dead people in the cemetery.
[capitan_kerryfugio #2149 displaying Blue State insanity] John Merryman was at one time a leader in the State Agricultural Society, located in the City of Baltimore (separated from the County in 1851).
The Official Record documents that the Merryman in this case was arrested in his home near Cockeysville and taken by train to Baltimore City. Being a member of a group that has an office in Baltimore does make Merryman a neighbor of anyone in Baltimore.
[capitan_kerryfugio #2149 displaying Blue State insanity] Merryman was called one of the "first citizens" of Baltimore county.
The Official Record documents that the Merryman in this case was arrested in his home near Cockeysville and taken by train to Baltimore City. Baltimore City was not part of Baltimore County.
[capitan_kerryfugio #2149 displaying Blue State insanity] And, of course Merryman was an officer (1st Lt.) in the Baltimore County Horse Guards. (So was Harry Gilmore - who was only a corporal when the war started.)
The Official Record documents that the Merryman in this case was arrested in his home near Cockeysville and taken by train to Baltimore City. Baltimore City was not part of Baltimore County.
[capitan_kerryfugio #2149 displaying Blue State insanity] John Merryman has plenty of connections to Baltimore, at first glance, and with very little effort at research.
Thus far, you moron, you have shown nothing but people with the same last name, but not John Merryman, were in Baltimore, some of them buried there. The Official Record documents that the Merryman in this case was arrested in his home near Cockeysville and taken by train to Baltimore City.
[capitan_kerryfugio #2149 displaying Blue State insanity] So your silly little map and story about 15 or 23 miles doesn't pass muster for proving or disproving anything. LOL!
Taney's daughter lived on Franklin Street in Baltimore City. The Official Record documents that the Merryman in this case was arrested in his home near Cockeysville and taken by train to Baltimore City. Microsoft Streets and Maps calculates the distance from Franklin Street in Baltimore to Cockeysville as 23 MILES. The Official Record documents that the Merryman in this case was arrested in his home near Cockeysville and taken by train to Baltimore City.
[capitan_kerryfugio #2149 displaying Blue State insanity] You also need to keep in mind that the Taneys, and the Keys, the Bosleys, and the Merrymans were part of the Maryland aristocracy. They have family connections that go back generations, into the early 1700's. They were the families that provided the legislators, the judges, the mayors, the military officers, and so on. The old planter families are like that; even here in California.
You need to keep in mind that Chief Justice Taney lived in Washington, D.C. and he and Merryman were not neighbors. You need to keep in mind that when Taney was in Maryland he stayed at the Campbell's on Franklin Street. You need to keep in mind that the Official Record documents that the Merryman in this case was arrested in his home near Cockeysville and taken by train to Baltimore City. You need to keep in mind that it is 23 MILES from Franklin Street in Baltimore to Cockeysville. You need to keep in mind that Taney and Merryman were not neighbors, even if you can cite that there were dead people with the same last name buried in a Baltimore cemetery.
[capitan_kerryfugio #2149 displaying Blue State insanity] If you don't think Taney knew Merryman, you are deluding yourself. But that's probably what you prefer, rather than face up to the fact that one of your icons was wholly fallible.
It is clear that you are delusional.
The Merryman case happened in 1861.
We know that Merryman was not Taney's neighbor in 1823, because Merryman had not been born yet. One assumes the purported friendship had to wait at least until Merryman was out of diapers.
We know that at the time of the Merryman proceedings, Taney lived in Washington, D.C. at 23 Blagden's Row.
We know that he only stayed in his daughter's house in Maryland on occasion.
Baltimore was not "home" to Taney. When he died, he was taken to Frederick, the services were held there, and he was buried there.
Taney's daughter lived on Franklin Street in Baltimore City. The Official Record documents that the Merryman in this case was arrested in his home near Cockeysville and taken by train to Baltimore City. Microsoft Streets and Maps calculates the distance from Franklin Street in Baltimore to Cockeysville as 23 MILES. The Official Record documents that the Merryman in this case was arrested in his home near Cockeysville and taken by train to Baltimore City.
You need to keep in mind that Chief Justice Taney lived in Washington, D.C. and he and Merryman were not neighbors. You need to keep in mind that when Taney was in Maryland he stayed at the Campbell's on Franklin Street. You need to keep in mind that the Official Record documents that the Merryman in this case was arrested in his home near Cockeysville and taken by train to Baltimore City. You need to keep in mind that it is 23 MILES from Franklin Street in Baltimore to Cockeysville. You need to keep in mind that Taney and Merryman were not neighbors, even if you do cite that there were dead people with the same last name buried in a Baltimore cemetery.
"... had not [Merryman] been a citizen of [Taney's] own State, a neighbor, and a personal friend ..."
Were both citizens of Maryland? Yes. You can argue that Taney had moved to Washington, D.C., when he was nearly 80 years old, but for all reasonable purposes, Taney was a Marylander.
Was Merryman a "personal friend of Taney"? You have provided nothing to refute the claim and I have provided a list of reasons to believe that such was quite likely the case. You took exception to the Time's statement - prove it wrong.
Were Merryman and Taney neighbor's? You have taken the tact to suggest they must have lived near one another at the time of the trial. Taney would be proud of your narrow-minded approach. He was the master of the same when it came to constitutional interpretation. Just as Taney and Merryman can be considered citizens of the same state, they could as easily have been neighbors. There is nothing to preclude Merryman from having owned a home in the city of Baltimore. Many rich southern families maintained residences in the city and in the country. (Consider the historical fiction behind this thread!). You have taken exception to the claim - so disprove it.
Until you can disprove it, I'll go with Rehnquist and his documentation.
"It di'n't even hurt," he said whimpering.
[cr #2153] Pardon me for laughing out loud.
No problem. It is normal behaviour for Blue-State morons.
The Merryman case was in 1861. Taney's wife died in 1855. In 1855 he sold the Baltimore house and moved to Washington, D.C.
Taney was born in Frederick, MD. When he died, the services were held in Frederick and he was buried in Frederick. Baltimore was not home.
At the time of the Merryman case, Taney LIVED in Washington, D.C. at 23 Blagden's Row. That was his ONLY residence. Taney's widowed daughter Sophia and her son Roger stayed there, as did Taney's daughter Ellen who was an invalid much of her life.
When Taney went to Baltimore for the Merryman case, he stayed at the house of his daughter Anne, and his son-in-law James Campbell at what was then No. 55 Franklin Street, in the second block west of Charles.
John Merryman was a resident of Baltimore COUNTY, not Baltimore CITY. John Merryman was at his home, sleeping, when Lincoln's storm troopers arrived to unlawfully arrest him.
John Merryman's home was near COCKEYSVILLE. From Franklin Street in Baltimore City to COCKEYSVILLE is a distance of 23 MILES.
Following his arrest, John Merryman was brought to Baltimore by train.
John Merryman was not a neighbor to Chief Justice Taney's Washington address.
When Chief Justice Taney stayed at his daughter's home 23 MILES FROM COCKEYSVILLE, he did not magicly become a neighbor to John Merryman, despite capitan_kerryfugio's mindless blathering.
Baltimore City was an independent city, and not part of Baltimore County.
When Chief Justice Taney stayed in his daughter's house in Baltimore City, he was not even in the COUNTY of Merryman's residence, you prime example of Blue State Cultural ignorance and gross public dumb.
John MERRYMAN was born on 9 Aug 1824. He died on 15 Nov 1881. He was buried in Cockeyville, MD.
Chief Justice TANEY was born March 17, 1777. In 1861, Merryman was 36 years old. Taney was 84 years old.
All of this is a matter of public record and has been known for more than a century.
Damn, you're dumb.
Blue-State cretins are not capable of thought, as you prove on a constant basis.
What you mean is that it is painfully embarrassing that you say the case is about "treason" and the court makes not one passing mention of treason. All it talks about is habeas corpus. Of course, for the Blue State Brigade, that does not matter.
[capitan_kerryfugio #1900] I got that far before I realized you had coughed up another purposeless hairball. Bollman was about what treason.
CAPITAN_KERRYFUGIO LYING AGAIN
As capitan_kerryfugio knows well, the issue before the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Bollman was not "treason" as he repeatedly but falsely claims. It was about a motion for a grant of habeas corpus.
One may search the Opinion of the Court in vain looking for even the appearance of the word "treason." It is not there.
The term "habeas corpus" appears over two dozen times.
Chief Justice Marshall defines the issue at the outset, "The inquiry therefore on this motion will be, whether by any statute, compatible with the constitution of the United States, the power to award a writ of habeas corpus, in such a case as that of Erick Bollman and Samuel Swarthout, has been given to this court."
The issue is decided, "If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide. Until the legislative will be expressed, this court can only see its duty, and must obey the laws. The motion, therefore, must be granted.
Contrary to the mindless blather of capitan_kerryfugio, in the grip of "blue-state culture" as such is described and advocated by ftD, before the Supreme Court the case of Ex Parte Bollman addresses and decides a motion regarding habeas corpus.
U.S. Supreme Court
EX PARTE BOLLMAN, 8 U.S. 75 (1807)
MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court, as follows:
As preliminary to any investigation of the merits of this motion, this court deems it proper to declare that it disclaims all jurisdiction not given by the constitution, or by the laws of the United States.
Courts which originate in the common law possess a jurisdiction which must be regulated by their common law, until some statute shall change their established principles; but courts which are created by written law, and whose jurisdiction is defined by written law, cannot transcend that jurisdiction. It is unnecessary to state the reasoning on which this opinion is founded, because it has been repeatedly given by this court; and with the decisions heretofore rendered on this point, no member of the bench has, even for an instant, been dissatisfied. The reasoning from the bar, in relation to it, may be answered by the single observation, that for the meaning of the term habeas corpus, resort may unquestionably be had to the common law; but the power to award the writ by any of the courts of the United States, must be given by written law.
This opinion is not to be considered as abridging the power of courts over their own officers, or to protect themselves, and their members, from being disturbed in the exercise of their functions. It extends only to the power of taking cognizance of any question between individuals, or between the government and individuals.
To enable the court to decide on such question, the power to determine it must he given by written law.
The inquiry therefore on this motion will be, whether by any statute, compatible with the constitution of the United States, the power to award a writ of habeas corpus, in such a case as that of Erick Bollman and Samuel Swartwout, has been given to this court.
The 14th section of the judicial act (Laws U. S. vol. 1. p. 58.) has been considered as containing a substantive grant of this power.
It is in these words: 'That all the before mentioned courts of the United States shall have power to issue writs of scire facias, habeas corpus, and all other writs, not specially provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law. And that either of the justices of the supreme court, as well as judges of the district courts, shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus, for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment. Provided, that writs of habeas corpus shall in no case extend to prisoners in gaol, unless where they are in custody under or by colour of the authority of the United States, or are committed for trial before some court of the same, or are necessary to be brought into court to testify.'- The only doubt of which this section can be susceptible is, whether the restrictive words of the first sentence limit the power to the award of such writs of habeas corpus as are necessary to enable the courts of the United States to exercise their respective jurisdictions in some cause which they are capable of finally deciding.
It has been urged, that in strict grammatical construction, these words refer to the last antecedent, which is, 'all other writs not specially provided for by statute.'
This criticism may be correct, and is not entirely without its influence; but the sound construction which the court thinks it safer to adopt, is, that the true sense of the words is to be determined by the nature of the provision, and by the context.
It may be worthy of remark, that this act was passed by the first congress of the United States, sitting under a constitution which had declared 'that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus should not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety might require it.'
Acting under the immediate influence of this injunction, they must have felt, with peculiar force, the obligation of providing efficient means by which this great constitutional privilege should receive life and activity; for if the means be not in existence, the privilege itself would be lost, although no law for its suspension should be enacted. Under the impression of this obligation, they give, to all the courts, the power of awarding writs of habeas corpus.
It has been truly said, that this is a generic term, and includes every species of that writ. To this it may be added, that when used singly- when we say the writ of habeas corpus, without addition, we most generally mean that great writ which is now applied for; and in that sense it is used in the constitution. The section proceeds to say, that 'either of the justices of the supreme court, as well as judges of the district courts, shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment.'
It has been argued that congress could never intend to give a power of this kind to one of the judges of this court, which is refused to all of them when assembled.
There is certainly much force in this argument, and it receives additional strength from the consideration, that if the power be denied to this court, it is denied to every other court of the United States; the right to grant this important writ is given, in this sentence, to every judge of the circuit, or district court, but can neither be exercised by the circuit nor district court. It would be strange if the judge, sitting on the bench, should be unable to hear a motion for this writ where it might be openly made, and openly discussed, and might yet retire to his chamber, and in private receive and decide upon the motion. This is not consistent with the genius of our legislation, nor with the course of our judicial proceedings. It would be much more consonant with both, that the power of the judge at his chambers should be suspended during his term, than that it should be exercised only in secret.
Whatever motives might induce the legislature to withhold from the supreme court the power to award the great writ of habeas corpus, there could be none which would induce them to withhold it from every court in the United States; and as it is granted to all in the same sentence and by the same words, the sound construction would seem to be, that the first sentence vests this power in all the courts of the United States; but as those courts are not always in session, the second sentence vests it in every justice or judge of the United States.
The doubt which has been raised on this subject may be further explained by examining the character of the various writs of habeas corpus, and selecting those to which this general grant of power must be restricted, if taken in the limited sense of being merely used to enable the court to exercise its jurisdiction in causes which it is enabled to decide finally.
The various writs of habeas corpus, as stated and accurately defined by judge Blackstone, (3 Bl. Com. 129.) are, 1st. The writ of habeas corpus ad respondendum, 'when a man hath a cause of action against one who is confined by the process of some inferior court; in order to remove the prisoner and charge him with this new action in the court above.'
This case may occur when a party having a right to sue in this court, ( as a state at the time of the passage of this act, or a foreign minister,) wishes to institute a suit against a person who is already confined by the process of an inferior court. This confinement may be either by the process of a court of the United States, or of a state court. If it be in a court of the United States, this writ would be inapplicable, because perfectly useless, and consequently could not be contemplated by the legislature. It would not be required, in such case, to bring the body of the defendant actually into court, as he would already be in the charge of the person who, under an original writ from this court, would be directed to take him into custody, and would already be confined in the same jail in which he would be confined under the process of this court, if he should be unable to give bail.
If the party should be confined by process from a state court, there are many additional reasons against the use of this writ in such a case.
The state courts are not, in any sense of the word, inferior courts, except in the particular cases in which an appeal lies from their judgment to this court; and in these cases the mode of proceeding is particularly prescribed, and is not by habeas corpus. They are not inferior courts because they emanate from a different authority, and are the creatures of a distinct government.
2d. The writ of habeas corpus ad satisfaciendum, 'when a prisoner hath had judgment against him in an action, and the plaintiff is desirous to bring him up to some superior court to charge him with process of execution.'
This case can never occur in the courts of the United States. One court never awards execution on the judgment of another. Our whole juridical system forbids it.
3d. Ad prosequendum, testificandum, deliberandum, &c. 'which issue when it is necessary to remove a prisoner, in order to prosecute, or bear testimony, in any court, or to be tried in the proper jurisdiction wherein the fact was committed.'
This writ might unquestionably be employed to bring up a prisoner to bear testimony in a court, consistently with the most limited construction of the words in the act of congress; but the power to bring a person up that he may be tried in the proper jurisdiction is understood to be the very question now before the court.
4th, and last. The common writ ad faciendum et recipiendum, 'which issues out of any of the courts of Westminster-hall, when a person is sued in some inferior jurisdiction, and is desirous to remove the action into the superior court, commanding the inferior judges to produce the body of the defendant, together with the day and cause of his caption and detainer , (whence the writ is frequently denominated an habeas corpus cum causa,) to do and receive whatever the king's court shall consider in that behalf. This writ is grantable of common right, without any motion in court, and it instantly supersedes all proceedings in the court below.'
Can a solemn grant of power to a court to award a writ be considered as applicable to a case in which that writ, if issuable at all, issues by law without the leave of the court?
It would not be difficult to demonstrate that the writ of habeas corpus cum causa cannot be the particular writ contemplated by the legislature in the section under consideration; but it will be sufficient to observe generally that the same act prescribes a different mode for bringing into the courts of the United States suits brought in a state court against a person having a right to claim the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. He may, on his first appearance, file his petition and authenticate the fact, upon which the cause is ipso facto removed into the courts of the United States.
The only power then, which on this limited construction would be granted by the section under consideration, would be that of issuing writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum. The section itself proves that this was not the intention of the legislature. It concludes with the following proviso, 'That writs of habeas corpus shall in no case extend to prisoners in jail, unless where they are in custody under or by colour of the authority of the United States, or are committed for trial before some court of the same, or are necessary to be brought into court to testify.'
This proviso extends to the whole section. It limits the powers previously granted to the courts, because it specifies a case in which it is particularly applicable to the use of the power by courts:-where the person is necessary to be brought into court to testify. That construction cannot be a fair one which would make the legislature except from the operation of a proviso, limiting the express grant of a power, the whole power intended to be granted.
From this review of the extent of the power of awarding writs of habeas corpus, if the section be construed in its restricted sense; from a comparison of the nature of the writ which the courts of the United States would, on that view of the subject, be enabled to issue; from a comparison of the power so granted with the other parts of the section, it is apparent that this limited sense of the term cannot be that which was contemplated by the legislature.
But the 33d section throws much light upon this question. It contains these words: 'And upon all arrests in criminal cases, bail shall be admitted, except where the punishment may be death; in which cases it shall not be admitted but by the supreme or a circuit court, or by a justice of the supreme court, or a judge of a district court, who shall exercise their discretion therein, regarding the nature and circumstances of the offence, and of the evidence, and of the usages of law.'
The appropriate process of bringing up a prisoner, not committed by the court itself, to be bailed, is by the writ now applied for. Of consequence, a court possessing the power to bail prisoners not committed by itself, may award a writ of habeas corpus for the exercise of that power. The clause under consideration obviously proceeds on the supposition that this power was previously given, and is explanatory of the 14th section.
If, by the sound construction of the act of congress, the power to award writs of habeas corpus in order to examine into the cause of commitment is given to this court, it remains to inquire whether this be a case in which the writ ought to be granted.
The only objection is, that the commitment has been made by a court having power to commit and to bail.
Against this objection the argument from the bar has been so conclusive that nothing can be added to it.
If then this were res integra, the court would decide in favour of the motion. But the question is considered as long since decided. The case of Hamilton is expressly in point in all its parts; and although the question of jurisdiction was not made at the bar, the case was several days under advisement, and this question could not have escaped the attention of the court. From that decision the court would not lightly depart. (United States v. Hamilton, 3 Dall. 17.)
If the act of congress gives this court the power to award a writ of habeas corpus in the present case, it remains to inquire whether that act be compatible with the constitution.
In the mandamus case, (ante, vol. 1. p. 175. Marbury v. Madison,) it was decided that this court would not exercise original jurisdiction except so far as that jurisdiction was given by the constitution. But so far as that case has distinguished between original and appellate jurisdiction, that which the court is now asked to exercise is clearly appellate. It is the revision of a decision of an inferior court, by which a citizen has been committed to jail.
It has been demonstrated at the bar, that the question brought forward on a habeas corpus, is always distinct from that which is involved in the cause itself. The question whether the individual shall be imprisoned is always distinct from the question whether he shall be convicted or acquitted of the charge on which he is to be tried, and therefore these questions are separated, and may be decided in different courts.
The decision that the individual shall be imprisoned must always precede the application for a writ of habeas corpus, and this writ must always be for the purpose of revising that decision, and therefore appellate in its nature.
But this point also is decided in Hamilton's case and in Burford's case.
If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so.
That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide. Until the legislative will be expressed, this court can only see its duty, and must obey the laws.
The motion, therefore, must be granted.
You are in California, I'm not.
Of course, the Brigade position on Blue State civilization is that the RAT-controlled blue-state cities are the epitome of democracy, and they produced and are home to American civilization, and their removal would collapse the economies of the rest of the nation.
That is Blue State Culture, as explained by the Brigade. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
It is indeed difficult when one considers the opposing opinion of the foremost Blue State Brigade legal scholar who holds that it is not about habeas corpus at all -- it is about treason.
capitan_refugio #237 8/29/2004 to GOPcap argued that "Bollman was not about habeas corpus...."
capitan_refugio #1900 12/01/2004 "Bollman was about what treason."
Exactly.
Had we lost, July 4th would have been the day that the colonies declared themselves a separate nation, not became one.
According to capitan_kerryfugio, there were people named Merryman who were buried in Baltimore, proving that the corpses were neighbors and friends of Taney, and by extension, that made John Merryman a neighbor.
Merryman was in the cavalry and had a pony that was a lot like Lincoln, proving a family tie.
Taney was 46 years older than Merryman. The experienced Taney knew all the hot places to pick up babes, and he and Merryman hung out together.
The official record proves that Merryman was arrested at home in Cockeysville and transported by train to Baltimore.
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.