I forgot to mention. Not only does GOPcrapulist not cite from authoritative sources, he labels every source that refutes him as "left wing," "marxist," or a otherwise nutty. He resorts to ad hominem attacks, like the one I've posted. I find GOPc's reference to "shoddy history" most amusing and ironic, as he knows nothing else - he's sort of a watie-in-training.
"Ex Parte Bollman in 1807 and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld in 2004"
In neither case was the issue of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus germane. His reference here is to dicta. Non-sequitur has explained it to him before, but GOPc is wedded to his fallacies.
Yawn. Do you deny that Daniel Farber is a left wing kook from Berkeley, capitan? I simply described him as he is. Perhaps the fact that so many of your chosen "expert sources" find similar terms associated with them is an indicator of a substantial problem with where you go to look for sources. Are you still citing slavery reparationists, ACLU/SPLC lawyers, and Clintonistas to support your view on 1860's constitutional issues by the way? Or was that just a phase you went through?
I find GOPc's reference to "shoddy history" most amusing and ironic, as he knows nothing else
Bold words from such a small man. Considering your own lengthy and documented record of perpetuating falsehoods on this forum to support your positions (note to fortheDeclaration - several of us caught your buddy el capitan on another thread comitting a blatant act of fraud not once but four successive times - he was attempting to pass off dissenting opinions, recorded arguments, and lower court rulings as if they were the majority ruling in major SCOTUS cases), you aren't exactly in much of a position to comment upon shoddy history or accuse another of practicing it.
In neither case was the issue of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus germane. His reference here is to dicta.
Wrong and wrong. It is the issue on which the case itself turns in Bollman - look it up if you doubt me and you will see John Marshall stating the rule on the suspension of habeas corpus immediately followed by the word "therefore" and a decision in the case to issue a writ. In Hamdi you will find the habeas corpus issue cited throughout the ruling and the primary dissent (it was one of the things that they both agreed upon) to show that the prisoner, Hamdi, was being improperly denied access to the courts even though Congress had not authorized a suspension of the writ.
El capitan, the great "constitutional scholar" whose history of interpreting supreme court cases includes fraudulently attempting to pass off extraneous material as the ruling, simply heard the word "dicta" - which he neither understands nor desires to understand - being used on FR one day by his equally incompetent buddy Non-Sequitur, googled the thing along side the word "Bollman," found a couple hits referring to wholly unrelated passages from elsewhere in the ruling, and decided right then and there that Marshall's opinion on habeas corpus must also be "dicta." It may be worth mentioning as further evidence of your compatriot's unusually poor and/or intellectually challenged character that for a time he was denying that Bollman - the landmark habeas corpus case of the founding era - had anything to do with habeas corpus at all.