No, meathead. Not only did Lincoln NOT have the power to suspend the writ in the Merryman case, it is historical fact that LINCOLN did NOT suspend the writ in the Merryman case. Lincoln purported to authorize military officers to suspend the privilege of the writ at THEIR discretion. It was allegedly done by a military officer. Nobody has ever tried to defend the right of a military officer to suspend habeas corpus at HIS discretion. It is preposterous.
[cr] 2. John Meryman participated in an insurrection against the United States. He did so as part of a military unit. He was subject to the laws of war, and military arrest was the natural consequence.
No, meathead. Merryman carried out orders from the Governor of Maryland, as part of a Maryland military unit.
The laws of war did not apply. The arrest by military authorities with no specific charges was judicially determined to be unlawful.
Suspending the privilege of the writ in the described circumstances has been judicially determined to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Acting under the President's orders and authority. The Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 provided the missing Congressional guidance on the matter; but until it was passed, there was no controlling legislation. Lincoln acted in an unprecedented situation - good thing he did too, or we might all talk with a drawl.
"No, meathead. Merryman carried out orders from the Governor of Maryland, as part of a Maryland military unit."
The orders to burn the bridge came from the Mayor and Chief of Police of Baltimore. What gave them that authority? Your "I was just following orders" defense didn't work too well at Nuremberg, either.
"Suspending the privilege of the writ in the described circumstances has been judicially determined to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL."
Sorry, you are wrong again. The Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 was constitutional. Retrospective legislation is permissible as long as it does not run afoul of ex post facto prohibitions.