Posted on 04/12/2007 9:34:54 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
You have that backwards. It was the South who started the war at Sumter and the South who were the aggressors.
President John Tyler.
Who am I to say it? South Carolina made it plain enough in its Declaration of Causes to secede. What were trying to do here is to see where the truth is.
Habeas corpus definately came before the full court under Marshall. The case was Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout. Bollman and Swartwout were two Aaron Burr associates who were arrested in New Orleans for their involvement in the 1807 Burr-Wilkinson conspiracy. The case arose out of the activities of Wilkinson in New Orleans, who blocked delivery of a territorial Federal Judge's habeas corpus writ to Swartwout just long enough to get him on a transport ship to Washington, D.C. for trial. Wilkinson was arguing that the danger to New Orleans posed by Burr's loyalists required him to arrest conspirators without the writ. Marshall found that the writ had not been properly suspended though, and ruled that the Supreme Court had to grant it to the two prisoners.
It's a very important early supreme court case because it has defined how habeas corpus applies ever since. Unfortunately our dumbass Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has apparently never read it, which is why the Bush administration keeps getting slapped down in court over Gitmo. And it's not that they're doing anything wrong either - they're just making the wrong legal arguments and erroniously designating the prisoners with the cloak of civilian rights to conform to their misguided legal arguments. If they followed Ex Parte Bollman and the similarly important Ex Parte Milligan from 1866, instead of the highly flawed Ex Parte Quirin from 1941, they could detain the Gitmo thugs as booked POW's and war criminals long as they wanted and the leftist whiners couldn't do a damn thing about it.
Yes, suspending the writ of habeas corpus MEANS that a judge’s order to d=relase someone is invalid.
Even while nominally a Whig as President, John Tyler was really a Democrat and was expelled from the Whig Party and then became a Democrat.
Habeas has actually been before the Supreme Court several times, and yes it did come before John Marshall in 1807.
It also came before Chief Justice Chase in 1866, Chief Justice Stone in 1942, Chief Justice Rehnquist in 2004, and Chief Justice Roberts in 2006.
No he didn't. Tyler was known as the "man without a party" after the Whigs expelled him because they would not renominate him. Nor would the Democrats take him. Tyler belonged to neither party.
And it still goes on!
Now it's Miss Gray. It used to be his good friend, Uncle Ed.
Pitiful.
The South didn’t occupy Ft. Sumter until AFTER Lincoln refused to meet with the peace commissioners. Nice Try.
Negative. Lincoln refused to meet the peace commissioners sent expressly for that purpose.
:)
Yea...SURE they did. And I have some ocean-front property in West Texas to sell you. CHEAP :)
And in that case who had suspended habeas corpus, Congress or the President?
And in all those cases who had suspended habeas corpus, Congress or the President?
The South had stolen millions in federal property before Lincoln was elected. And they were demanding that federal troops leave Sumter and turn it over to them without compensation, so the attempts at theft continued.
But what about the scenario I proposed in post 347? Any interest in trying it?
Complete nonsense. The commissioners were not sent to offer payment for property stolen. They were there to obtain recognition of confederate sovereignty from Lincoln. To get him to admit their actions to date had been legal. In short, to get him to surrender. Then and only then was there a vague offer to discuss "matters and subjects interesting to both nations". No express offer to pay for anything, not even an implied offer to pay for anything. The rebel stance was obviously, "We stole it fair and square, we're keeping it."
Pass. I have no desire to live in Texas and suspect you would prefer we keep it that way. But the rebels were the aggressors, they did start the war, and they did pay the price.
Defending the U.S. Constitution has always been the core mission of the Republican Party, from 1854 to today, against traitors during the Civil War and during the War on Terror.
The GOP was fighting against the Constitution in the 1860s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.