Replies

"The war also established that the rule of law can be overridden by a president who controls the military." baloney. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to "suppress Insurrections.." and the elastic clause grants them the power to do whatever is "necessary and proper" to carry out those Powers in the Constitution. While much of what Lincoln did was by executive order, Congress was actually more rabid about "punishing" the south than he was and had ample opportunity to undo any actions he took if they saw them as illegal. Frankly, the south lost it's claim to it's victimization when they fired on federal property (Ft. Sumter) to begin the war. That would be considered both an insurrection AND an invasion of Federal property. The popular mythology that Lincoln trashed the Constitution is more southern whining seeking to explain away their defeat by claiming that the president acted outside of his powers. If anything, he kept the Radicals in Congress under reign. The other whining complaint is that Lincoln was unconstitutional in suspending Habeas Corpus. Again, read your Constitution...Art. I, Sec. 9... "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." While Taney tried to say that Lincoln couldn't do this, only Congress could, Lincoln disagreed and challenged Taney to enforce it. The USSCCJ who had said blacks had no rights in the USA was powerless and ignored. Know thy Constitution...

The other whining complaint is that Lincoln was unconstitutional in suspending Habeas Corpus. Again, read your Constitution...Art. I, Sec. 9... "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

That is true. Pay close attention to that clause's role in the document though. It is a claus of Article I, which begins "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"

The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is accordingly a power of the legislature, not the president. This is in congruence with historical common law and the reading of the U.S. Constitution given by the nation's early jurists and founders.

John Marshall affirmed this view writing for the majority in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout in 1807 - "The decision that the individual shall be imprisoned must always precede the application for a writ of habeas corpus, and this writ must always be for the purpose of revision that decision, and therefore appellate in its nature. But this point also is decided in Hamilton's case and in Burford's case. If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide."

While Taney tried to say that Lincoln couldn't do this, only Congress could, Lincoln disagreed and challenged Taney to enforce it.

The case arose in 1861 before the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland on the petition of Merryman, who was imprisoned under the suspension of habeas corpus. Taney, the sitting judge on that circuit at the time, responded by following the legal procedure for habeas corpus petitions and served a writ to Merryman's imprisoner, General Cadwalader, ordering them to appear in court to state the cause. Cadwalader responded to the writ with a refusal to appear, asserting that the president had suspended the writ of habeas corpus, permitting him to hold Merryman and others.

Taney responded by again ordering Cadwalader to appear in court before him on the issue of suspending habeas corpus and the order was refused, leaving the case before his court unanswered. Taney responded by issuing a ruling in which he struck down the president's unilateral suspension of habeas corpus. The ruling was made citing Marshall's Supreme Court ruling in Bollman as its precedent. Taney had it delivered to Lincoln, who was then obliged to either accept the ruling or file an appeal from the circuit court to the United States Supreme Court.

Lincoln refused to do either and instead ignored the ruling. His action violated the constitutional judiciary system of the United States and, under other circumstances could have easily been grounds for his impeachment.

Interesting then isn't it that when the northern tyrant began his little war he didn't bother to call Congress back into session until he had suspended habeas corpus, taken money out of the US Treasury to fund his troops, purchased ships and began shipbuilding of other ships. Your argument has been used before here and soundly trounced. Taney had no one to go to because the only other branch, to which these powers belonged, were suprisingly out of the Capitol for the next three months!!

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that if one branch is not in session that another branch can assume those powers. However the northern tyrant assumed them and began his little war. Know thy history and thy Constitution