“In law school, are you? Nice stretch, but writ of habeas corpus has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. You’re attempting to equate judicial procedure with a constitutional right.”
Not in law school, but I’m aware that lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus for very similar reason as what happened in N.O.
Ok, try this....I’m not a lawyer, don’t play one on TV, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
I do not understand habeas corpus. Please explain it to me.
Since I do not understand habeas corpus, I cannot possibly understand how it relates to suspension of the Second Amendment.
Pretend I’m a liberal and talk me through it using small English words, ok?
So far so good, but you are fabricating the meaning and effect of the suspension, out of your imagination.
Lincoln jailed reporters and newspapermen, and would not allow them to see a judge to challenge the jailing. He did so in cities that were not battlefields. The Supreme Court ruled that the suspension was unconstitutional.
Ex parte Merryman is one such case. The name of the other escapes my immediate recall.
EPIC FAIL.
Actually, not. Pres. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the CIVIL WAR for the purpose of jailing those who were believed to be committing treason or sedition. (You may recall he actually sent some to Canada, which promptly sent them back, so he had them jailed here, without recourse to habeas corpus.) New Orleans may have been a mess but it was not a war, so the cases aren't even remotely similar.