Yet it was nevertheless a ruling and it was made during The Lincoln's administration. You just said The Lincoln ignored no ruling made during his administration, yet he ignored the Merryman ruling.
Article I, section 9 does NOT state specifically that the writ of habeas corpus is reserved to the Congress
Such reasoning is stupid, as Article I, section 9 does not need to state this. It is already stated in Article I, section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"
Lest you claim it is a Congressional right becaause of its placement in the first Article
It's kinda hard not to, considering that the first article explicitly identifies itself as pertaining to the legislature and the legislature's interactions within the government. It's all there in Article I, section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"
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.
Nonsense. The opening clause of Section 9 identifies itself as pertaining to Congress. The 8th clause also identifies Congress as the institution at hand. 4 of the 6 remaining clauses in Section 9 specifically refer to the making or laying of laws - a legislative function. Combined with the text of Article 1, Section 1 it is simply absurd to think that this section applies to a branch other than the legislature. As for section 10, it deals with activities of states that infringe upon the rights of Congress and specifies them repeatedly to be matters of the "Consent of the Congress."
(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.)
Only a tortured and ignorant reading of the document that completely neglects its straight forward plain text meaning could result in that belief.
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.
Nonsense. The clause is a reference to the president's powers as commander in chief. Nowhere in the Constitution is the power to suspend habeas corpus listed as a power of the commander in chief or the executive.
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.
Irrelevant. Even the guiltiest of guilty criminals has a constitutional right to the judicial process. Suspending habeas corpus violates that right.
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.)
Even so, the suspension right permitted in that clause belongs to the Congress, not the President. Try again.
and Article I, Section 10 states in full ..... (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!)
But again, nowhere does it say that the violation of any of those things gives the president the right to suspend habeas corpus. Try again.
If you think for one minute the Lincoln Administration was not faced with an unprecedented crisis of the highest severity
Crisis does not make the violation of the Constitution legitimate. It may make it practical and persons in a crisis may do it, but that does not instill legitimacy of the action. Try again.
Roger B. Taney was a slaveowner from Maryland.
Attacking the Taney instead of his argument is a logical fallacy, and even if his opinion is discarded, we still have the earlier ruling by John Marshall saying the same thing. Try again.
He had no business making rulings on issues dealing with slavery
Merryman was a ruling on the suspension of habeas corpus, not on slavery, and Taney was a properly seated judge with constitutional authority to rule on judicial matters. Try again.
He should have recused himself from Dred Scot
Perhaps so, but that is of no relevance to the separate case of Merryman. Try again.
and he had no business issuing ex-parte Merryman
Why not? He was a properly seated judge of a proper jurisdiction with the constitutional authority to issue Merryman. Therefore it was every bit a part of his business to issue it. Try again.
even though he did so as a Circuit Court judge, and not as a Supreme Court Justice.
Circuit court rulings are matters of legal weight too, you know, and especially so when they are not appealed and overturned. Try again.
He had a vested interest in the subject areas against which he ruled.
Exactly what was his vested interest in habeas corpus? He wasn't himself being arrested in suspension of the writ at the time, was he? If not, his jurisdiction over the case was sound. Try again.
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.
Congress is not the arbiter of the constitution and in fact violates it in an unpunished manner on a regular if not daily basis. Try again.
Had Congress been in session Lincoln most assuredly would have gone to them and asked for the suspension.
Hypotheticals that never happened are no substitute for reality nor are they an excuse for reality's shortcomings. Try again.
Congress was not in session, and there simply was no time to waste.
The Lincoln could have called it into session, or he could have made the arrests by having charges filed. Try again.
The Writ of Habeaus Corpus is a privilege.
Walt
Sorta like saying that the words of the Preamble: "In order to form a more perfect Union..." would allow of unilateral state secession, huh?
Walt
Nowhere is it forbidden either.
Article 1, Section 9 speaks --even by your interpretation -- to the powers of Congress. The document is silent on what the president may do, but it does refer to the Writ as a privilege.
This all, all of it, the whole neo-reb rant, comes down to this one thing:
The federalists soft-pedaled what they were selling with a lot of euphemistic language. But there is no doubt that over time most people in the United States came to adopt their view. That is why we are living in the United States and not the North American Balkan States.
All I can figure is that the United States is not European enough for you.
Walt
Circuit court rulings are matters of legal weight too, you know, and especially so when they are not appealed and overturned. Try again.
I'm not a lawyer, thank God, but I think a personal opinion written by a judge with a vested interest -- Taney was a slave owner with strong leanings towards slave power interests -- needs to be considered in its proper light. Taney was flirting with treason himself. He had no standing to make any ruling at all. He should have recused himself. But Lincoln showed himself a pretty canny lawyer too. He didn't need to arrest Taney -- that much is obvious because of the triumph of Union arms. I mean, after all, the traitors --were-- thrown down, their conspiracy --was-- foiled.
We may be taking this all from the wrong tack. If all you can point to is Merryman, you can in a sense pretty much be countered with a "so what?"
In this same time frame the mayor and police chief of Baltimore were actively aiding and abetting treason in that city. railroad bridges --were-- burned, telegraph lines --were- cut; there -was- an attempt by the slave power to consumate their revolution by destroying the seat of the lawful government.
You discount all that. You won't take the real world events into consideration. I don't suppose that is too surprising from someone who implies the Emancipation Proclamation should be revoked.
Walt