Can you quote the New York Times article for us?
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus had been constitutionally suspended for the purposes outlined in the Suspension Clause. Once Taney had been apprised of its suspension, his ability to issue the writ was terminated.
BZZZT! Wrong. You are affirming the consequent of a false and circular argument. The underlying premise - that the writ had been constitutionally suspended - is unsupported. Rather, a president who was not authorized by the constitution to suspend it purported to do so. The court, when faced with that claim, evaluated the standing of its jurisdiction under the law and, finding the Judicial Act of 1789 still in place, discovered its jurisdiction intact.
You continually mis-state the case and have been unable to prove otherwise.
Wrong again. I simply state what his own website at Claremont claims - that he's got a degree in English. Since you are citing him as an authority the burden is also upon you to establish his credentials. Yet you have done nothing of the sort, nor do you seem to dispute the fact that he is trained in English rather than the law.
Prof. Jaffa is a recognized authority on the subject and has been for more that 40 years.
No. Professor Jaffa wrote a single notable book on the subject of Lincoln 40 years ago and has been riding its fame ever since without contributing anything more of note or distinction to the record (though he has provided no deficit of low-quality panegyrics and historically incorrect garbage)
However, please state your credentials in the legal field, or the legal authorities you reference.
Happily. Though I am not a lawyer nor do I profess to be one, my credentials in the field include formal academic training in American constitutional law, authorship of academic case briefs on a dozen or more supreme court rulings, and employment at a law firm during college. The authorities a cite for my position are John Marshall, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Robbin Curtis, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Yates, St. George Tucker, Joseph Story, William Rawle, and Antonin Scalia. And yes, I'll pit those guys against the Cult of Harry any day.
I can certainly quote part of it for you:
"In the case of John Merriman [sic], the interposition of Chief Justice Taney can only be regarded as at once officious and improper .... Judge Taney presents the ungracious spectacle of a judicial and the military authority of the United States at variance, the soldier eager to punish, and the jurist eager to exculpate a traitor. The antithesis might have been very easily avoided; and an impression that the zeal of the Justice might have been less fervent, had not the prisoner been a citizen of his own State, a neighbor, and a personal friend, would not have countenanced." (From Rehnquist, pg 35)
"The underlying premise - that the writ had been constitutionally suspended - is unsupported."
Incorrect. It is supported by the text of the Suspension Clause, the necessity and circumstances related to the suspension, and the Congressional approval of the suspension.
"I simply state what [Jaffa's] own website at Claremont claims - that he's got a degree in English."
Another case of telling a partial truth. His AB was in English. What about his PhD from the New School?
"Since you are citing him as an authority the burden is also upon you to establish his credentials."
Incorrect again. Professor Jaffa is a recognized authority in the subject matter quoted. If you want to try and pull down the professor, that's entirely up to you. If find the fact that you shy away from contacting the professor as evidence, on its face, that you are more interested in cheap shots than finding the answer (an answer, I suspect, that would not be to your liking).
"The authorities a cite for my position are John Marshall, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Robbin Curtis, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Yates, St. George Tucker, Joseph Story, William Rawle, and Antonin Scalia. And yes, I'll pit those guys against the Cult of Harry any day."
It is clear you cite the people listed about, but you have demonstrated little ability to understand what they wrote. I recall you quote from Marshall and Scalia in dicta and dissent, and from commentaries by Rawle, Tucker, and Story. What you quoted from Jefferson about habeas I can not recall. Yates, the Antifederalist, is of little consequence as he was on the losing side of that particular political skirmish, and the only time I can recall you quoting from Curtis was in an attempt to boost Taney's reputation.
"Though I am not a lawyer nor do I profess to be one, my credentials in the field include formal academic training in American constitutional law, authorship of academic case briefs on a dozen or more supreme court rulings, and employment at a law firm during college."
And at the same time you tout this level of accomplishment, you state that Professor Fehrenbacher's or Professor Wood's work is not authoritative? Your ego is showing. You don't hold a candle to Fehrebacher, Wood, Jaffa, or Farber.