Please provide the source of your expert opinion on Criminal Procedure.
Are you saying Cadwallader was required to merely "notify" Chief Justice Taney, or provide evidence of a lawful suspension of the privilege of the writ?
Are you saying Cadwallader was required to "notify" Taney upon his receipt of Merryman, or upon the authorization to suspend the privilege of the writ?
Was the Great Usurper required to notify anyone when he usurped Legislative authority?
Was the Great Usurper required to notify anyone when he raped the Constitution and authorized military officers to suspend the privilege at THEIR discretion, and to delegate the unconstitutional authorization further?
What is the process of transfer of criminal custody? How does it work when the receiving officer does not know why the person is being held?
If legislative authority was "usurped," I expect the legislature to make that claim.
"Are you saying Cadwallader was required to merely "notify" Chief Justice Taney, or provide evidence of a lawful suspension of the privilege of the writ?
"Are you saying Cadwallader was required to "notify" Taney upon his receipt of Merryman, or upon the authorization to suspend the privilege of the writ?"
I am saying that when Taney issued the writ, whatever military commander had custody of and was holding the traitor Merryman, was obligated to inform Taney that the privilege of the writ had been suspended in that area. Once Taney was apprised of the suspension, Rehnquist suggests that Taney, if he intended to proceed, had the obligation to inquire further regarding the matter.
"[T]he issue of the President's authority under the Constitution to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was a tremendously important question of public law. Before the question was decided against the President, government counsel surely should have been heard from. Taney's hasty decision is all the more remarkable because he had only learned at the Monday session of the Court of the existence of the Presidential proclamation.... Taney's refusal to countenance any delay at all for the purpose of allowing the government to present its case does not speak well for either his judgment or his impartiality." (All the Laws But One, pg 41)
Chief Justice Rehnquist hit the nail on the head when he questions Taney's judgment and impartiality. Taney's actions and attitude are perfectly consistent with a partisan judge trying to spring a friend, rather one who is interested investigating the validity of a claim that cripples his authority. One need only reflect on Taney's typical bluster in Merryman ("Having, therefore, regarded the question as too plain and too well settled to be open to dispute ...") to realize he wasn't interested in impartiality.