I am sorry these -facts- are so inconvenient.
Your position is fantasy.
Inconvenient? How so? The fact is that some presidents violate the Constitution. Lincoln did when he suspended the writ with peaceful Maryland, which, just like SC, he saw as a threat. He probably was getting pretty paranoid to have the principles all around him abandoning their agent. I'm sorry if your favorite president falls in the same category with Bill Clinton, but facts are facts. Some presidents violate the Constitution. This particular violation is just one little part of the tapestry of Lincoln's slick presidency.
That is not fact. It's fantasy--at least in this case.
You sound shrill and out of control
Here are the -facts- re Jackson. Got this off the 'net:
"Indeed, citing the case of Andrew Jackson after the Battle of New Orleans, Lincoln noted that when a newspaper article appeared denouncing him while martial law was in effect, the author was arrested. When a lawyer defended the writer and cited the writ of habeas corpus, Jackson had the lawyer and the judge who ruled in the defendant’s favor both arrested. Lincoln supported this action, and noted that both were freed only after a treaty of peace was ratified."
Not only that--but Congress refunded to Jackson the $1,000 fine imposed by the judge.
There was ample precedent to support Lincoln,and--you guessed it--your position is simply fantasy.
Walt