Replies

You won't be offended if I defer to his personal opinion instead of yours.

Not in the least. You certainly have the right to believe what you want. Rehnquist is an adherent of "inter arma silent leges" (in time of war the laws are silent). Heartwarming isn't it. Even after ex parte Milligan - which held that the Constitution cannot be suspended even in time of war - we have a justice today that thinks the Constitution is suspendable. By the way, Milligan was not just the opinion of Justice Davis. Back to Rehnquist, who had this to say as well,

I would have agreed with his view as to suspending the writ of habeas corpus, I think, because that seemed to be a real threat to the union. When the upper South seceded, Washington became a capital right on the frontier, right across the Potomac was Virginia, and the union simply could not afford to lose the nation's capital. So there I think you have a real situation that calls for some executive determination. On the other hand, when his postmaster general, Montgomery Blair, decided just to deny mailing privileges to all the newspapers in New York that were opposed to the war, there really was no justification. You've got to continue to have free speech and freedom of the press during the war.
Chief Justice Rehnquist, Interview with David Gergen, 11 Nov 1998.

So much for Rehnquist basing his opinion on anything contained within the Constitution. And as an aside, its questionable that the right enshrined in the body of the Constitution is deemed dismissable, yet the rights within the Bill of Rights are set in concrete.

'Shrouded' is certainly the word for what Taney wrote. That was not a decision of the court either.

LOL! - Not a decision. I know it was ex parte decision (meaning "for the benefit of"), and issued from the Maryland District Circuit court by Taney. In that decision Taney remanded it back to Lincoln, so that would have to use Constitutional means to accomplish his goals. In Taney's own words,

I shall, therefore, order all the proceedings in this case, with my opinion, to be filed and recorded in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland, and direct the clerk to transmit a copy, under seal, to the president of the United States. It will then remain for that high officer, in fulfilment of his constitutional obligation to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed,' to determine what measures he will take to cause the civil process of the United States to be respected and enforced.

According to the laws of these united states, it was an official decision. Of course, referring to that same interview quoted above, here's Lincolns response to Taneys decision, "[t]he President then ignored it. Taney issued his opinion, I think, in May, and Lincoln paid no attention to it." A President above the law, now he's President and Supreme Court Justice too?

Now, we -know- that the Taney court ruled in the 1862 "Prize Cases" -unanimously- that putting down the rebellion of the "so-called seceded states" (to use -their- phrase) was a legitimate function of the government. Do you support what Taney did there--deny the legitimacy of secession?

Attempting to change the subject? Settle this arguement first.

Again, I don't write this for your benefit, but for the lurkers.

I'm glad you didn't write it for my benefit. I'm sure the lurkers are grateful as well. Taney states, rather plainly I might add, that the Presidents powers are limited:

So too, his powers in relation to the civil duties and authority necessarily conferred on him are carefully restricted, as well as those belonging to his military character. He cannot appoint the ordinary officers of government, nor make a treaty with a foreign nation or Indian tribe, without the advice and consent of the senate, and cannot appoint even inferior officers, unless he is authorized by an act of congress to do so. He is not empowered to arrest any one charged with an offence against the United States, and whom he may, from the evidence before him, believe to be guilty; nor can he authorize any officer, civil or military, to exercise this power, for the fifth article of the amendments to the constitution expressly provides that no person 'shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law' that is, judicial process.

Besides illegally suspeding the writ of habeas corpus, Taney also held that Lincoln also violated Amendments IV, V, and VI of our Constitution.

[N]o one who fairly examines the record will adopt your position.

Please refute the three cases I cited, especially the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall. Unless you have the ability to wave a magic wand to make at least three cases disappear - and only until then - anyone that does examine the official record, must adopt my position. Not one, but several courts and numerous justices held that only Congress may excercise the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

So please provide the decisions by the Supreme Court holding that the cited decisions were illegal, erroneous and unconstitutional. If you don't mind, I won't hold my breath in anticipation.