Sorry, Lincoln's actions is suspending the privilege of the writ were both constitutional and necessary. The Constitution provides the reasons for suspending the writ. That situation existed when Lincoln necessarily acted. Rather than condemn his actions, the Congress backed him up. Lincoln's actions were heroic and saved the Union.
"To the contrary, by an In-Chambers Opinion of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional rapist known as the Great Usurper Abraham Lincoln was speicifcally given chapter and verse of the history of the law and informed precisely and specifically how and why he was in violation of the Constitution."
Taney was a southern partisan. He should have recused himself from sitting on the case of a friend and neighbor. When informed that he had no further power to act on the habeas petition, he went into a tirade. Big deal.
And unsubstantiated and gratuitous claim.
The Constitution provides the reasons for suspending the writ.
...yet only gives the suspension power to Congress.
That situation existed when Lincoln necessarily acted.
There's nothing necessary about it. Lincoln chose to suspend the writ out of convenience.
Rather than condemn his actions, the Congress backed him up.
Another filthy lie from the filthy liar. Congress soundly rejected Lincoln's habeas corpus suspension bill later that year and would not pass one for another two years.
Taney was a southern partisan.
Argumentum ad hominem.
He should have recused himself from sitting on the case of a friend and neighbor.
Unproven and unsubstantiated innuendo.
When informed that he had no further power to act on the habeas petition, he went into a tirade.
Unsubstantiated claim built upon a faulty affirmation of the consequent.
Following Lincoln's justification, in his July 4 speech to Congress, for disregarding Taney's Merryman decision, [Attorney General] Bates issued an opinion justifying the President's action. It was not a very good opinion. It essentially argued thateach of the three branches of the federal government established by the Constitution was coequal with and independent of the other two. The President was thus not subordinate to the judicial branch, and so the latter could not order him, or his subordinates, to free Merryman. This proposition had been refuted by Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison more than half a century earlier.
The Constitutional rapist known as the Great Usurper Abraham Lincoln was well aware that his actions were UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but his lust for power was such that he did not care and he proceeded to rape the Constitution he had sworn to uphold.
You have been unable to provide any proof that Taney so much as knew John Merryman.
Chief Justice Taney was resident in Washington, D.C. with no residence in Maryland. Merryman was resident in Maryland. Presumably they were neighbors in MD and DC together. Perhaps the alleged friendship arose from going to different schools together.
Chief Justice 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.
http://www.geocities.com/doswind/myers/supreme_11.html
According further to Tyler, Taney was poor. In an interview with Tyler, published after Taney’s death in the Cincinnati Commercial newspaper, Tyler was asked : “Was Judge Taney rich, Mr. Tyler?” “No, sir,” replied Tyler, “always poor. He lived in Blagden row -- the row of stuccoed houses opposite the City Hall. They are four-storied; an iron balcony runs above the first story; two windows adjoin the hall door."
Thus, as did Great Usurper, capitan invokes the "Law" of necessity, also known as "Executive Nullification." Not even Lincoln apologist Daniel Farber could grovel to this depth. As Farber noted, "It is fruitless to argue for a general power of executive nullification. Lincoln himself did not even offer this defense, and history speaks strongly against it."
In other words, capitan is just B.S.-ing again.
Article 1, Section 1 states:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
In detailing legislative powers therein granted, Article 1, Section 9 states:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases or Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Was there a Rebellion in Maryland?
Was there an Invasion of Maryland? (not counting Spoons Butler's invading thugs)
What evidence is there that on May 28, 1861 the public safety of Baltimore required the suspension of habeas corpus?
What evidence is there that this legislative power was exercised by the Legislature?