Posted on 04/04/2008 11:24:46 AM PDT by SpaceBar
Ah!
And right next to that section in the same article that says what states may and may not do, so it's clear that Article I did not apply solely to Congress. In other sections of the same article, the Constitution clearly states that Congress shall or shall not. So such words were used in section 9. Until the matter is brought before the Supreme Court then the question of who exactly may suspend habeas corpus remains undecided.
What sense would it make to give the President the ability to unilaterally suspend oversight of himself? Can you really see the founders of this country doing that?
Yes. You have to remember that up until the middle of the 20th century Congress was a part time occupation, usually meeting for only a few months out of the year. In the event of a rebellion or invasion when Congress was not in session then the president should have the power to act to protect the country. That is why, I believe, the specifics of who may suspend the writ were not specified. And also why the Constitution specifically limits the reasons why it may be suspended.
The Supreme Court has never ruled that the president cannot suspend habeas corpus. What I believe you are thinking of is the 1865 case of Ex Parte Milligan, where the court limited the circumstances where habeas corpus could be suspended regardless of who suspended it. Specifically, the court ruled that where local and district courts operate freely and openly then the writ cannot be suspended regardless of whether other parts of the country are in rebellion or have been invaded.
The circuit court did. The Supreme Court never heard the case because it was not in session at the time.
But those clauses describing restrictions on state powers are really just defining powers belonging to Congress.
In the event of a rebellion or invasion when Congress was not in session then the president should have the power to act to protect the country.
Sorry. I don't buy it. Every state had a militia. But the Federal government had virtually nothing. There was no need for the President to personally have the power to suspend habeas corpus.
Nor was he a homosexual, as the MSM has repeatedly insinuated. About the worst thing one can say about Hoover along these lines is that he was a “mama's boy.” He lived with her until she died.
Not entirely, no. Some restrictions are also prohibited of Congress. Congress can't pass ex post facto laws, for example, or bills of attainder.
Sorry. I don't buy it. Every state had a militia. But the Federal government had virtually nothing. There was no need for the President to personally have the power to suspend habeas corpus.
Congress disagreed with you. In 1792 they also gave the president the power to call up the militia on his own authority, should Congress not be in session, if invasion or insurrection required it.
It is likely that the founders intended that only the Congress be authorized to suspend habeas corpus. Should the matter ever appear before the Supreme Court I expect that the court would uphold that position. But the founders didn't say who may suspend it and the court hasn't ruled on the matter.
Yeah I would not think the FBI would have the power to suspend HC...but it would be interesting to see what is in the FBI files during this period...
But that's still just defining the role of Congress. I don't see a way to infer that any of the article applies to the president.
...
Congress disagreed with you. In 1792 they also gave the president the power to call up the militia on his own authority, should Congress not be in session, if invasion or insurrection required it.
I don't see the disagreement. The Militia Act gave the president the power to call up state militia's under certain circumstances. It didn't grant a power to suspend habeas corpus and I don't see how it may have implied that power. The Militia Act was an extraordinary amount of authority to give a president though. You are right about that. If it had been anyone but Washington in the White House I doubt it would have passed.
It is likely that the founders intended that only the Congress be authorized to suspend habeas corpus. Should the matter ever appear before the Supreme Court I expect that the court would uphold that position. But the founders didn't say who may suspend it and the court hasn't ruled on the matter.
Agreed.
1. The most severe wartime news censorship in memory was imposed six months into the Korean War while Truman was president.*
2. The military draft was re-invigorated.
30,000 American lost their lives in 30 months in Korea in a war that would not have occurred if troops had remained in S. Korea in 1949.**
*The press could not criticize the allied war effort. Dispatches were screened to eliminate reports that could harm morale. Correspondents were placed under the jurisdiction of the army and were subject to court martial. Casualties could not be reported and officers could not be quoted without authorization.
**"Most everyone agrees that had the U.S. troops remained, there would have been no war. U.S. troops remained in West Germany and Communist East Germany did not invade. Clearly, the Korean War could have been prevented by an adequate peacetime defense budget." (A Brief Account of the Korean War)
bttt
The SCOTUS and the courts are not the ultimate guarantor of our liberties: we are, through the most effective check on the abuse of power-- elections. If the arrests had gone through, Truman would have been held accountable in '52, or even earlier through the impeachment system. If the threat had been deemed credible, then Truman would have likely suffered no penalty, just as Wilson did not during WWI.
“They’ve installed Gorbachev right here in the United States
He’s in San Francisco, that’s scarcely part of the United States.”
Unfortunately, it still is.
Sorry. I didn’t mean you.
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.