Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Grand Old Partisan
The law was not the "indeminity law", but the Habeas Corpus Act, and Dilorenzo misspelled "indemnity".

H.R. 591 was entitled, "AN ACT To indemnify the President and other persons for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and acts done in pursuance thereof."

The typo "indeminity" was my typo.

Your sentence should have ended with the period inside the quotation mark.

858 posted on 06/30/2003 7:53:23 AM PDT by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 856 | View Replies ]


To: nolu chan
Are you saying that the "Habeas Corpus Act" of 1863 was not enacted into law? If so, either you are mistaken, or the US Supreme Court was mistaken. In Ex parte Milligan (1866), part of the 1863 act was overturned. It seems to me that the Supreme court would not rule part of a lay unconstitutional that had not been passed in the first place.
894 posted on 06/30/2003 3:32:59 PM PDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 858 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson