Replies

"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."

So in other words, you don't even have a real article from the New York Times. You have a venom-laced editorial page rant that gives no specifics to substantiate its charges. Try again.

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.

You are still affirming the consequent, and now abusing the timeline to do so. First off, there is nothing in the text of the suspension clause even remotely suggesting that the president has the power to employ it while everything about its location and what we know of it from the testimony of the founders points conclusively to the fact that it is a power of the legislature alone. Second, the "necessity and circumstances" claim you make is of no legal bearing upon whether or not Taney had jurisdiction and has been subsequently rejected by the Supreme Court as legal BS in Milligan and Hamdi, among others. Third, that congress later acted in 1863 has no bearing on Taney's jurisdiction in 1861 as it could not have been known or forseen and was, as it stands even today, two years removed from Taney's case.

Another case of telling a partial truth. His AB was in English. What about his PhD from the New School?

It doesn't state what subject it's in or even what his focus or dissertation topics were. Thus all we know for certain about his specific credentialed field of expertise is that he's got an English degree.

Incorrect again.

There's nothing incorrect about noting the simple fact that the user of an authority also bears the burden of establishing that authority's credentials to be used.

Professor Jaffa is a recognized authority in the subject matter quoted.

Jaffa is a constitutional scholar? According to who? Where'd he get his training and credentials in constitutional studies then? And why does every real constitutional scholar consider his ideas to be on the fringe of the discipline?

In citing Jaffa as a constitutional authority you violate two key assumptions that must hold true for the appeal to have any validity: he must have credentials in the subject area and his judgment itself must be in the area of his credentials. Jaffa meets neither when it comes to the matter you are citing him for.

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

It's not my burden to answer, capitan. That burden is yours and yours alone.

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.

Your dicta charge against Marshall is without substantiation as I have shown through quoting the case many times. The excerpt I posted from Scalia's dissent, it should be noted, is also a part that is in full agreement with the ruling by O'Conner.

What you quoted from Jefferson about habeas I can not recall.

"Those respecting the press, religion, & juries, with several others, of great value, were accordingly made; but the Habeas corpus was left to the discretion of Congress, and the amendment against the reeligibility of the President was not proposed by that body." - Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

Yates, the Antifederalist, is of little consequence as he was on the losing side of that particular political skirmish

Yawn. THe anti-federalists, who included such notable founders as Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, and George Mason in their ranks, are just as valid authorities on the founding as anybody else. The passage from Yates (who was a delegate to the constitutional convention, BTW) is a noncontroversial summary of the document's provisions as reported back to his readers:

"In the same section it is provided, that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion and invasion, the public safety may require it." This clause limits the power of the legislature to deprive a citizen of the right of habeas corpus, to particular cases viz. those of rebellion and invasion; the reason is plain, because in no other cases can this power be exercised for the general good."

and the only time I can recall you quoting from Curtis was in an attempt to boost Taney's reputation.

"There has been much discussion concerning the question whether the power to suspend the "privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" is conferred by the Constitution on Congress, or on the President. The only judicial decisions which have been made upon this question have been adverse to the power of the President.Still, very able lawyers have endeavored to maintain -- perhaps to the satisfaction of others -- have maintained, that the power to deprive a particular person of the "privilege of the writ," is an executive power. For while it has been generally, and, so far as I know, universally admitted, that Congress alone can suspend a law, or render it inoperative, and consequently that Congress alone can prohibit the courts from issuing the writ, yet that the executive might, in particular cases, suspend or deny the privilege which the writ was designed to secure. I am not aware that any one has attempted to show that under this grant of power to suspend "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus," the President may annul the laws of States, create new offences unknown to the laws of the United States, erect military commissions to try and punish them, and then, by a sweeping decree, suspend the writ of habeas corpus as to all persons who shall be "arrested by any military authority." I think he would make a more bold than wise experiment on the credulity of the people, who should attempt to convince them that this power is found in the habeas corpus clause of the Constitution. No such attempt has been, and I think none such will be made. And therefore I repeat, that no other source of this power has ever been suggested save that described by the President himself, as belonging to him as commander-in-chief." - Justice Benjamin R. Curtis, "Executive Power," 1862

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?

I said nothing about either that I can recall insofar as this particular discussion is involved. Come to think of it, I don't recall you ever citing a passage from either of those men on the subject of habeas corpus. Your clip from Fehrenbacher was about the Dred Scott decision and the one from Wood was about the Declaration of Independence. I commented upon Jaffa and Jaffa alone as he relates to habeas corpus and stand by my assertion that he is wholly uncredentialed and unqualified to be used as an authority on the matter, your attempts to divert attention from him as the focus of my comment notwithstanding.

Your ego is showing.

Bullsh*t. YOU asked me what credentials I had in law. To turn around and portray my perfectly honest, polite, and reasonable effort to comply with this request as a matter of egotism is fundamentally dishonest and fraudulent, not that I would expect anything less from a filthy liar like you.