[capitan_refugio]

You are just parsing. Lincoln, at that time, had authorized officers in the chain of command to suspend the privilege of the writ along the Philadelphia to Washington corridor. Insurrectionist and mob activity was present in the area, and the public safety was at risk. The Constitution provides for the privilege of the writ to be suspended in precisely these occasions.

By doing so, Lincoln stanched the insurrection in Maryland. It was the right thing to do.

[nolu chan]

[capitan_kerryfugio] You are just parsing. Lincoln, at that time, had authorized officers in the chain of command to suspend the privilege of the writ along the Philadelphia to Washington corridor.

The Great Usurper had no authority to suspend habeas corpus himself, and the Great Usurper had no power to "authorize" military officers to do so.

Military officers could not lawfully suspend habeas corpus.

General Cadwallader never said he had actually suspended habeas corpus.

Cadwallader's message, read by a flunky to the Chief Justice, only claimed Cadwallader had been "authorized" to suspend the writ.

The Official Record proves that Cadwallader was not (UNconsitutionally) authorized to suspend the writ until after that was read to the Chief Justice.

Your primary source, the NYT editorials of the time, state, "We will concede, too, for the sake of the argument, that the power to suspend this writ exists only in Congress." It was common knowledge of the time that only the Congress held the suspension power. The NYT even said so before CJ Taney published his opinion agreeing with the NYT.

You are simply LYING again. You know full well that the Great Usurper did NOT suspend the privilege of the writ in the Merryman case. The only paper issued by the Great Usurper was to have the Chief Justice arrested, an act the less insane D.C. Marshal thought the better of and did not do.