Yes, I understood that.
By the way, I've challenged capitan to back up the claims of The New York Times that Taney was too close to Merryman and should have recused himself. We'll see. It wouldn't be the first time the Grey Lady lied.
The subject was brought up in 1861 and 1862 but got nowhere in Congress. The Act of 1863 went through the Senate at 5 a.m. with Senator Trumbull calling a voice vote, saying the bill passed, and adjourning the Senate for the session. Opposition senators were left protesting, and there was no recorded vote.
That's pretty rich. Sounds like something Slick Willie would do.
...the Court was presented with irrefutable and admitted evidence that the requirements of the Act of 1863 had not been complied with. Also, specifically, ONLY the President could suspend the writ, NOT military officers.
IMHO Congress couldn't confer authority to suspend, though -- it still fell to Congress to suspend the writ themselves, if there was need, not simply to give the Executive blanket authority. They couldn't authorize the President to suspend habeas corpus -- they had to suspend it. That's how (as Justice Scalia did, in his Hamdi dissent posted and linked above) I read the placement of the suspension power in the Constitution.
See my #1602.
If Merryman and Taney were neighbors, it must have been a miracle.
Taney sold his home in Maryland in 1855 and moved to Washington, D.C. More specifically, he was living at 23 Blogden's Row, on Indiana Avenue, near the Court House. See Carl Brent Swisher, Roger B. Taney, pp. 471 and 472.