Curtis was not a Justice. He resigned in 1857.
Even in the excerpt you provide, there is no evidence that a warrant was issued.
Lincoln didn't have to have Taney arrested. Taney was powerless, and irrelevant.
Taney was powerless in some ways simply because of the way he dscredited himself with decisions like Dred Scott, which was clearly wrong based on the record -- it was, as I have said before, as surely an attempt at judicial activism as Roe v. Wade was. And Dred Scott helped bring on the war. Thanks, Roger.
It should be noted that Merryman did actually take part in burning bridges in Maryland. The District of Columbia, or course, nestles between VA and MD. Virginia was in process of going for treason and secession. Lincoln absolutely could not wait for Congress to come into session -- that was not scheduled until September, 1861. Lincoln's actions were entirely properly and necessary. Taney was leaning towards treason himself simply by opposing Lincoln's actions. His ruling in Dred Scott shows he cared not a fig for the law.
I was thinking about something else today that I will append here.
Lincoln's extensive defense of his Habeas Corpus actions was made in June, 1863, over two years after the events in Maryland. I posted that defense on FR not long after 9/11. There was a very boistrous discussion of civil liberties during the ACW -- at least in the north. Nothing like that has really ensued since 9/11. It all blew over pretty quickly. I'm pretty sure this Juan Padilla who was arrested, is still held without access to counsel. He is an American citizen and none of the circumstances Lincoln faced then are extant now.
Walt
How does that discredit the opinion of a former US Supreme Court justice?
Even in the excerpt you provide, there is no evidence that a warrant was issued.
I guess Taney et al just made it up?
Lincoln didn't have to have Taney arrested. Taney was powerless, and irrelevant.
So your assertion is that the decisions by the courts are non-binding, only to be obeyed at the whims of the Executive? Didn't Lincoln take an oath to faithfully "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", not just the parts he agrees with?
Taney was powerless in some ways simply because of the way he dscredited himself with decisions like Dred Scott, which was clearly wrong based on the record.
Au contraire, just the reverse - 6 of his brethren agreed. As did the founders, and numerous Congresses. The Naturalization Act of 26 Mar 1790, limited US citizenship to "any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years". A similar act was signed into law in 1795. The Militia Act of 8 May 1792 limited service to "every free able-bodied white male citizen." All were signed into law by George Washington.
[I]it [Scott] was, as I have said before, as surely an attempt at judicial activism as Roe v. Wade was. Nonsense, how did Taney et al invent anything extra-constitutional? From the evidence cited above, the decision followed Constitutional & congressional guidelines. And of course, in Scott Justice Grier also held the same opinion that Taney did - remember him from the Prize Cases? Or what about Justice Curtis, that you dismiss for lauding Taney's habeas corpus decision? He was in the minority in Scott.
And Dred Scott helped bring on the war. Thanks, Roger.
The Scott decision was in what year? Try 1857. 4 years before the war. Lincoln's attempts to seize Southern property brought on the war.
It should be noted that Merryman did actually take part in burning bridges in Maryland. The District of Columbia, or course, nestles between VA and MD. Virginia was in process of going for treason and secession.
The constitutional definition of treason does not include secession.
Lincoln absolutely could not wait for Congress to come into session -- that was not scheduled until September, 1861.
Which is why the executive was granted the power in "extraordinary occasions" to "convene both Houses, or either of them" - the founders forsaw that emergencies would arise. Lincoln didn't want to convene congress to authorize his actions - they might have held different views.
Lincoln's actions were entirely properly and necessary.
Taney ruled against Lincolns actions, as did Lincoln's friend Davis who authored ex parte Milligan:
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.
Taney was leaning towards treason himself simply by opposing Lincoln's actions.
You kill me when you make this stuff up Walt. Now it's a treasonable offense to disagree with someone? You know what the constitutional definition of treason is - and it does not include disagreeing with the executive. The Judiciary's delegated power is to deciding what is illegal or unconstitutional, not the executive. Yet now, in your fantasy world, the judiciary is making war by disagreeing with the executive? ROTFL!
His ruling in Dred Scott shows he cared not a fig for the law.
Again, justices Taney, Catron, Wayne, Nelson, Grier, Daniel and Campbell concurred with the founders and the Constitution.