Posted on 04/12/2007 9:34:54 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
free dixie,sw
SOME of those who acted as "slave-catchers" were also said to be "abolitionists".
the FACTS are that northerners wanted the $$$$$$$$ & cared less (as a group) about the "plight of the slaves".
i'd bet that you couldn't have found 20,000 REAL abolitionists in ALL of the north. they SHOULD have cared;they did BOT.
free dixie,sw
GOOD POST THANKS
frankly, the members of "the DY coven" (less N-S of course) are considered IDIOTS, TROLLS & blind FOOLS by most FReepers. that is why they will NOT post TO the coven lunatics. that is also why they RIDICULE & LAUGH AT the "coven" behind your backs, OFF-forum.
i, otoh, laugh AT you "to your faces" & tell you that the lot of you are divided into the :
IGNORANT
STUPID
UNEDUCATED
CLUELESS &
the DISHONEST.
fyi, i was talking by phone to a lady FReeper from NY last evening. she said that the responses of the "DAMNyankee coven members" was PITIFUL, UNeducated, SILLY, FOOLISH & made her laugh AT them/you. she said that when she needs a laugh that she comes over to the WBTS threads to see how "the UNeducated class lives".
free dixie,sw
the "stupid club" awaits your arrival with bated breath. "Mr SPIN" & "ftd" NEED your help.
free dixie,sw
I think you need to go read up on the case a little more. General Wilkinson did not suspend habeas corpus, nobody did. He claimed the Supreme Court didn't have the power to issue the writ, and Chief Justice Marshall set him straight. But as a sidelight to that, since neither Congress or the President had suspended habeas corpus then the Court was not in a position to rule on just who may suspend it.
Nice try though.
Try again. General Wilkinson said that the Supreme Court could not issue the writ. Habeas Corpus had not been suspended by anyone.
1866 - The military tribunal that tried Milligan (found unconstitutional)
Try again. The Court ruled in Milligan that habeas corpus could not be suspended by anyone in areas where the federal courts operated freely and openly. It did not touch on who may suspend it.
1942 - The military tribunal and DoJ that blocked Quirin's petition for a writ (upheld for reason of expediency in a WWII emergency, but the Quirin case is almost universally considered to be bad case law today)
And bad law it may be, but again it did not rule on who may suspend habeas corpus. It merely said that as unlawful combatants the defendents were not entitled to due process protections. Once again habeas corpus had not been suspended.
2004 - The Bush administration by detaining Hamdi (found unconstitutional without Congressional approval)
Try again. Once again habeas corpus had not been suspended by anyone. The question was if Hamdi was entitled due process even being an 'illegal enemy combatant'. The court ruled he was. It was a case of rights denied not protections suspended.
2006 - Congress, which suspended habeas corpus for enemy combattants at Gitmo in the Military Commissions Act. (found constitutional by the D.C. Court of appeals and affirmed by the Supreme Court in early 2007 in Boumediene v. Bush).
Once again you seem to have a problem telling the difference between denied and suspended.
Better luck next time.
I've been a Republican since before you were born.
Abraham Lincoln was a Republican since before you were born, yet you take the word of a Democrat, Roger Taney, over Republicans who were defending the United States against Democrat rebels.
I've read the case and its background many times. Your comments on it make it readily apparent that you have not though.
General Wilkinson did not suspend habeas corpus, nobody did.
What Wilkinson did was to prevent the execution of the writ. Specifically, three writs were issued - to Erick Bollman, Samuel Swartwout, and Peter Ogden. Wilkinson blocked the writ's execution for Bollman and Swartwout by placing them on naval ships in the Mississippi River, then sailing those ships out of the jurisdiction of the territorial courts (Judges Sprigg and Workman) that issued the writs. Ogden was released when a subordinate officer of Wilkinson's received the writ, not knowing Wilkinson's intent. But Wilkinson had him rearrested, along with a fourth prisoner - Alexander. Ogden and Alexander were issued a second set of writs by Judge Workman. Wilkinson outright refused the writs from there on, while having Swartwout and Bollman transferred to Washington in the custody of the navy. In both cases his rationale was that the necessity of the situation deemed the arrests appropriate.
The issue arose as to whether Wilkinson had the authority to obstruct the execution of a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court decided this question on the grounds that neither Wilkinson, nor anybody else but Congress, prevent the writ's execution, and then only by a legislative suspension in times of war or rebellion. He claimed the Supreme Court didn't have the power to issue the writ, and Chief Justice Marshall set him straight.
Wilkinson did no such thing, nor was that argument even presented in the case. Bollman and Swartwout were being held in Washington on an affadavit of Wilkinson charging them with involvement in the Burr conspiracy. The U.S. Attorney in the case requested a bench warrant from the D.C. court charging them with treason, while Bollman and Swartwout's lawyers petitioned for habeas. The D.C. court issued the bench warrant and refused the habeas writ.
Bollman and Swartwout's attorneys then filed an appeal of the writ's rejection to the Supreme Court, and brought on Luther Martin - a constitutional convention delegate and famous attorney at the time - to argue their case. The Supreme Court accepted a few days later, hearing the case Ex Parte and rejecting the lower court's rulings on both counts. The treason warrant was dismissed for insufficient evidence and the habeas writ was issued on the grounds that no constitutionally permitted suspension had taken place without Congress' approval. This made Wilkinson's denial of the writ and the D.C. court's refusal of it unconstitutional, so the writ was issued.
But as a sidelight to that, since neither Congress or the President had suspended habeas corpus then the Court was not in a position to rule on just who may suspend it.
Your logic is fundamentally convoluted and your understanding of the case is nonexistant. Why am I not surprised by this?
A suspension of habeas corpus can ONLY occur when it is constitutionally authorized, and as Marshall correctly stated only Congress may do that. Without Congressional authorization under the permitted circumstances of invasion and rebellion, the denial of the writ by a member of the executive branch is unconstitutional.
Sure. I believe you are honorable, (maybe misguided), but honorable.
Once passions had cooled, I believe everything would have been done correctly.
My Pleasure, Sir, :)
Except that Wilkinson said no such thing, and wasn't even there to argue the case. The Court ruled that Habeas Corpus can only be denied when it is constitutionally suspended by Congress. Congress had not constitutionally suspended it though, making it unconstitutional for Wilkinson or the lower court to refuse a valid writ of habeas corpus.
The Court ruled in Milligan that habeas corpus could not be suspended by anyone in areas where the federal courts operated freely and openly. It did not touch on who may suspend it.
You clearly have trouble with reading the cases you purport to comment on. Ex Parte Milligan did indeed do that in several instances:
"The prayer of the petition was that, under the act of Congress approved March 3d, 1863, entitled, "An act relating to habeas corpus and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases," he may be brought before the court and either turned over to the proper civil tribunal to be proceeded against according to the law of the land or discharged from custody altogether."
and
"It was admitted at the bar that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application for the writ of habeas corpus and to hear and determine it, and it could not be denied, for the power is expressly given in the 14th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, as well as in the later act of 1863. Chief Justice Marshall, in Bollman's case, [n5] construed this branch of the Judiciary Act to authorize the courts as well as the judges to issue the writ for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of the commitment, and this construction has never been departed from. But it is maintained with earnestness and ability that a certificate of division of opinion can occur only in a cause, and that the proceeding by a party moving for a writ of habeas corpus does not become a cause until after the writ has been issued and a return made. Independently of the provisions of the act of Congress of March 3, 1863, relating to habeas corpus, on which the petitioner bases his claim for relief and which we will presently consider, can this position be sustained?"
and of course the decision itself:
"It is apparent therefore that, under the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863, the Circuit Court of Indiana had complete jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this case, and, if the judges could not agree on questions vital to the progress of the cause, they had the authority (as we have shown in a previous part of this opinion), and it was their duty, to certify those questions of disagreement to this court for final decision."
The act of 1863 repeatedly referred to was the law passed by Congress in 1863 suspending habeas corpus in certain circumstances during the war. Ex Parte Milligan recognized the provisions of this act as the suspending authority of habeas corpus, and that prisoner Milligan's circumstances in the civilian jurisdiction Indiana were not subject to that supsension. Denying him the writ was therefore unconstitutional.
And bad law it may be, but again it did not rule on who may suspend habeas corpus. It merely said that as unlawful combatants the defendents were not entitled to due process protections. Once again habeas corpus had not been suspended.
You really aren't very good at this, Non Sequitur. In fact your response reads like someone rapidly reviewing amateur case summaries off of wikipedia. In reality Quirin affirmed the actions of the military and Department of Justice preventing the execution of a writ of habeas corpus for the prisoners. The issue is not a claimed "suspension" of the writ but the act of preventing it from being administered, a "suspension" of the writ being valid ONLY if it is constitutional per the test of Ex Parte Bollman and Article I, Section 9. The Quirin ruling is quite explicit that it was brought to prevent the execution of the writ: "The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied."
Once again habeas corpus had not been suspended by anyone. The question was if Hamdi was entitled due process even being an 'illegal enemy combatant'. The court ruled he was. It was a case of rights denied not protections suspended.
Much like your recent episode over the supposed "majority" of Republican southern senators being ex democrats when there were in fact only 4 out of 19 fitting that category, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was quite clear on this point:
Likewise, we have made clear that, unless Congress acts to suspend it, the Great Writ of habeas corpus allows the Judicial Branch to play a necessary role in maintaining this delicate balance of governance, serving as an important judicial check on the Executive’s discretion in the realm of detentions. See St. Cyr, 533 U.S., at 301 (“At its historical core, the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have been strongest”). Thus, while we do not question that our due process assessment must pay keen attention to the particular burdens faced by the Executive in the context of military action, it would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge. Absent suspension of the writ by Congress, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant is entitled to this process.
Once again you seem to have a problem telling the difference between denied and suspended.
But that is not the problem at all. A suspension by its very definition can only occur if it meets the constitution's criteria. Anything that impedes the execution of a writ of habeas corpus but does not meet the constitution's criteria of suspension is NOT a suspension but a denial of the writ of habeas corpus by definition. According to Ex Parte Bollman and every affirmation of it ever since, only acts that meet the Constitution's criteria for the suspension as outlined explicitly in Ex Parte Bollman are suspensions of the writ. Anything else is an arrest made in denial of the writ's execution, and in every case except for Quirin (which is considered one of the worst rulings ever made) that denial has been found to be unconstitutional.
Taney was a Southron. You are d#mn right I would take his word over a tyrants.
How is that even an argument? Abraham Lincoln was a Republican since before EVERYONE here was born because he lived 150 years ago. Responses that simply assert "you're a Republican" or "you're a Democrat" as a means of dismissing everything else that person said are signs of a weak mind.
As I have pointed out to you before, Republicans themselves didn't agree with Lincoln on a number of things. Take, for example, the Wade-Davis Manifesto.
Lincoln also held that the seceded states had never left the Union, but other Republicans such as Thaddeus Stevens thought the opposite.
Some twelve million of the inhabitants of the country claimed that they no longer belonged to this nation. They set up an independent government. They established all the machinery of government, both of a national government and of States under that national government. They raised large armies to defend their pretensions. We, at the period when we declared against them a blockade, admitted them to be, not an independent nation, but an independent belligerent, rising above the rank of insurrectionists, and entitled to all the privileges and subject to the liabilities of an independent belligerent. The nations of Europe so treated them. We so treated with them in our dealings with prisoners of war. In short, there could be no doubt of the fact.
We were, then, at war as two independent nations; ... For these conquered rebels to pretend that they had any rights under a Constitution which they had thus repudiated and attempted to destroy, and that the states which had been arrayed in hostility to the nation were still States within this Union, as asserted to-day by the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Eldridge,] seems to me a bold absurdity. Yet that was the doctrine of the President. [Source: Thaddeus Stevens in the Congressional Globe, July 9, 1867, pg 545]
So, Lincoln's position on that matter was a "bold absurdity." A "bold absurdity" pretty much describes Lincoln's position on habeas corpus as well.
"No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."
The federal courts upheld this suspension as constitutional in Boumediene v. Bush, and the Supreme Court affirmed them in this decision earlier this year.
Calhoun seemed to think that if the balance of slave and non-slave states were lost, that the Constitutional system envisioned by the Founders would be destroyed. But there's nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing such a balance and the Northwest Ordinance clearly showed the limited future that that generation saw for slavery.
Sorry for not being very specific, I might be able to provide something more specific and satisfactory, but somebody put away and stored the book I'm looking for and I'm having trouble finding it!
How could the rebel government agree to pay for the property stolen and the debts repudiated without having to admit that their actions were wrong on the first place?
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.