Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: capitan_refugio
You have only posted your interpretation, twice.

There you go again, capitan. As the record of this thread plainly shows, I directly quoted the court's ruling, which says in the plainest of language that Lincoln obstructed the court. Try as you may, there are some things you simply cannot fib about and get away with.

As it was, there was no legal process to "illegally arrest."

Hence the word illegal.

None of those federal judges had the appropriate jurisdiction.

The Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave them their jurisdiction, says otherwise.

BTW, have you come up with an authoritative source who makes the same novel charges as you?

Considering that the Murphy decision was virtually forgotten to history until it was revived here on FR earlier this year, I don't believe there is much of anything out there that even discusses it beyond what's been noted here. That being the case, I'm content to rely upon the decision itself as a primary source, which is more authoritative than any running commentary one of your leftist court historians of choice could ever provide.

1,752 posted on 11/29/2004 8:09:31 PM PST by GOPcapitalist ("Marxism finds it easy to ally with Islamic zealotism" - Ludwig von Mises)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1747 | View Replies ]


To: GOPcapitalist
When the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, according the Constitution, the Judiciary Act of 1789 is of no consequence. One cannot obstruct a court that has no jurisdiction.

Who again, is your authoritative source?

1,753 posted on 11/29/2004 8:14:15 PM PST by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1752 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson