Replies

Following the violation of citizen's equal rights before the law in Maryland, Justice Roger Taney authored the opinion of Ex Parte Merryman for the US Circuit Court and had a copy hand delivered to Lincoln himself. Lincoln shunned the decision, though the court in its proper role had exercised a perfectly legitimate and constitutionally sound limitation on government powers exercised through the executive and military.

That is your opinion.

Here is the opinion of the current Chief Justice:

"Lincoln, with his usual incisiveness, put his finger on the debate that inevitably surrounds issues of civil liberties in wartime. If the country itself is in mortal danger, must we enforce every provision safeguarding individual liberties even though to do so will endanger the very government which is created by the Constitution? The question of whether only Congress may suspend it has never been authoritatively answered to this day, but the Lincoln administration proceeded to arrest and detain persons suspected of disloyal activities, including the mayor of Baltimore and the chief of police."

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, February, 1999

Walt

"Following the violation of citizen's equal rights before the law in Maryland, Justice Roger Taney authored the opinion of Ex Parte Merryman for the US Circuit Court and had a copy hand delivered to Lincoln himself. Lincoln shunned the decision, though the court in its proper role had exercised a perfectly legitimate and constitutionally sound limitation on government powers exercised through the executive and military." (me)

That is your opinion. (walt)

No Walt. It is actually how our government works. If the executive does something and somebody challenges it in court and wins, the court typically issues a ruling correcting the executive's action. The executive may either abide by the ruling, or he may challenge that ruling to a higher court if he doesn't like it. Lincoln did not abide by the court's ruling nor did he challenge it any higher. He simply ignored it, and ignoring it was not an option within the proper separation of powers in American government.

Now, as for the order itself, my opinion that Lincoln had no right to suspend habeas corpus on his own is also the current standing precedent decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

"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." - Chief Justice John Marshall writing for the majority, Ex Parte Bollman and Swarwout (1807) 4 Cranch 75

Here is the opinion of the current Chief Justice: "Lincoln, with his usual incisiveness, put his finger on the debate that inevitably surrounds issues of civil liberties in wartime. If the country itself is in mortal danger, must we enforce every provision safeguarding individual liberties even though to do so will endanger the very government which is created by the Constitution? The question of whether only Congress may suspend it has never been authoritatively answered to this day, but the Lincoln administration proceeded to arrest and detain persons suspected of disloyal activities, including the mayor of Baltimore and the chief of police."

Rehnquist is no doubt entitled to his opinion, but it is nothing more than just that. His is not supported by the court's precedent unlike the opposite position. Nor does he even state it in a court ruling or dissent of any form on any level. As of right now, his opinion directly contradicts the court's decision on this matter giving you at best another person who shares your erronious view on habeas corpus.