Now that's an interesting statement to be coming from you, Walt, cause you sure don't apply it to The Lincoln's unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus.
The supreme court clearly ruled on the matter and that ruling was directly affirmed by a lower court in a later ruling to The Lincoln which The Lincoln ignored. If what you say is true and "what the Court thinks matters," surely it must matter with habeas corpus. Yet you deny this at every opportunity. Why is that, Walt?
The Constitution nowhere says what the president may or may not do in regards to Habeas Corpus.
You neo-rebs are such hypocrites. Secession if permited because it is not explicitly forbibben. But suspension of the Writ (described as a privilege in the Constitution any way) is just the opposite. No fair-minded person will accept your interpretation.
It's just more-- "Boo-hoo-hoo! Mean old Lincoln kicked our butts!!"
Walt
Lincoln ignored no ruling made during his adminstration. Merryman was an ex parte decision by Taney acting on his own.
From the ACW moderated newsgroup:
"I will point out a number of flaws in this argument:
Article I, section 9 does NOT state specifically that the writ of habeas corpus is reserved to the Congress, it only outlines when it is to be used. Lest you claim it is a Congressional right becaause of its placement in the first Article, I would point out to you the text, and context of Section 10, as well. Seen together, these are issues, not specifically Congressional or State issues.
(Personally, I see the laundry list of things in Section 9 as being a list of things that may not do, not a list specifically reserved to the Congress, or the states.)
Article IV, Section 4 states:
"Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
Clearly, acting in accordance with the power vested in him by this section of the Constitution, Lincoln had every right to issue a "limited" suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Since you cite 'Merryman', I would remind you that what Merryman did to get his butt slung into jail was to burn a bridge to inhibit the passage of Federal troops into the state of Maryland, at a time when great mobs of secessionists were controlling the streets of Baltimore (which caused the suspension) causing the deaths of several citizens and troops.
How then, would you suggest that the Administration act during those events to protect the free passage of all anywhere in the United States? I will cite for you several other relevant passages of the Constituion of the United States:
Article I Section 9 states in part:
"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."
(Fact: There WAS a rebellion, and the public safety DID require it.)
and
Article I, Section 10 states in full:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emits Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
(Fact: All three clauses in this section were being violated by the slave states, openly, sub rosa, and by force of arms, and that includes Maryland --governor and legislators, mayor and chief of police in Baltimore!)
If you think for one minute the Lincoln Administration was not faced with an unprecedented crisis of the highest severity, then you are not thinking clearly.
Roger B. Taney was a slaveowner from Maryland. He had no business making rulings on issues dealing with slavery, and modern scholars are indeed taking another look at his decisions in light of that fact. He should have recused himself from Dred Scot, and he had no business issuing ex-parte Merryman, even though he did so as a Circuit Court judge, and not as a Supreme Court Justice. He had a vested interest in the subject areas against which he ruled.
Subsequently, the Congress, which was called into session, took Lincoln off the hook for this so called violation, making it clear that he DID have the right to suspend habeas corpus.
Had Congress been in session Lincoln most assuredly would have gone to them and asked for the suspension. Congress was not in session, and there simply was no time to waste.
Make no mistake about it, the actions of the slave states were a highly concerted conspiracy, and events were timed to occur so that the Federal government would [supposedly] be handcuffed into inaction by the very document those states sought to subvert."
[end]
But President Lincoln out-foxed them at every turn. And he did it under the laws.
Walt