Posted on 06/24/2002 7:16:31 AM PDT by xsysmgr
In Maryland, in 1861, bridges were burned and telegraph lines cut, and federal troops were fired on. These were treasonous acts of rebellion.
And you can prove he did this? Funny, Taney couldn't. At least not to the point of ignoring habeas corpus. And you admitted in the first place that he was arrested for treasonous sentiments, not acts. So, again I ask you, are we arresting people for thoughts?
Yeah, I did say this was a bad thing, in case you forgot in your rush to attack me personally.
Walt
Yes -- you can lose your citizenship if you are determined by due process of law to have done so. This requires a bit more than the Attorney General's say-so.
That's possible, and the legal procedures need to address that possibility. Something like the procedures intially used for Moussari (or however it's spelled in the Roman alphabet), where security-cleared lawyers handle the interface between the defendant and the court when sensitive areas are involved, would work.
(Moussari fired his lawyers and decided to defend himself, thus cutting himself off from certain information. Since he voluntarily chose to do so, and was presumably made aware that this was a likely result, I don't see any civil liberties issue there.)
Three words: Authority Without Accountability.
One word. "Afraid."
From Mayor Brown's statement of 5/9/61:
Report of Hon. George William Brown, Mayor of Baltimore.
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 2 [S# 2] -- CHAPTER IX. [BALTIMORE, May 9 (?), 1861.]
To the honorable the General Assembly of Maryland:
In the report recently made to your honorable body by the board of police commissioners of the City of Baltimore it is stated that, in the great emergency which existed in this city on the 19th ultimo, it was suggested that the most feasible, if not the only practicable, mode of stopping for a time the approach of troops to Baltimore was to obstruct the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore and the Northern Central Railroads by disabling some of the bridges on both roads; and it is added that "his honor the mayor stated to the board that his excellency the governor, with whom he had a few minutes before been in consultation, in the presence of several citizens, concurred in these views."
As this concurrence has since been explicitly denied by his Excellency Governor Hicks in an official communication addressed to the senate of Maryland on the 4th instant, which I have just seen, it is due to myself that I should lay before you the grounds on which the statement was made to the board of police, on which they, as well as myself, acted. I seriously regret that so grave a misunderstanding exists between the governor and myself on so important a subject.
On the evening of the 19th ultimo, and after the collision had taken place, I mentioned to Governor Hicks that I had begun to fear it might be necessary to burn the railroad bridges, but I did not then, in consequence of intelligence which had been received, think it would be; to which he replied that he had no authority to give such an order.
At about 11 o'clock p.m. of the same day, the Hon. H. Lenox Bond, George W. Dobbin and John C. Brune, esqs., were requested by Governor Hicks and myself to go to Washington in a special train, which was provided for the purpose, to explain in person the condition of things in Baltimore, and to bear the following communications from Governor Hicks and myself, which were addressed to the President: SIR: This will be presented to you by the Hon. H. Lenox Bond, George W. Dobbin and John C. Brune, esqrs., who will proceed to Washington by an express train at my request in order to explain fully the fearful condition of affairs in this city. The people are exasperated to the highest degree by the passage of troops, and the citizens are universally decided in the opinion that no more should be ordered to come.
The authorities of the city did their best to-day to protect both strangers and citizens, and to prevent any collision, but in vain; and but for their great efforts a fearful slaughter would have occurred. Under these circumstances it is my solemn duty to inform you that it is not possible for more soldiers to pass through Baltimore, unless they fight their way at every step.
I therefore hope and trust, and most earnestly request, that no more troops be permitted or ordered by the Government to pass through the city. If they should attempt it the responsibility for the blood shed will not rest upon me.
With great respect, your obedient servant, GEO. WM. BROWN, Mayor.
The following, from Governor Hicks, was appended to my communication:
To his Excellency ABRAHAM LINCOLN,
President of the United States:
I have been in Baltimore since Tuesday evening last, and co-operated with Mayor G, W. Brown in his untiring efforts to allay and prevent the excitement and suppress the fearful outbreak as indicated above, and I fully concur in all that is said by him in the above communication. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, THOMAS H. HICKS,
Governor of Maryland.
At about 12 o'clock p.m. the Hon. E. Louis Lowe and Marshal George P. Kane called at my house, where Governor Hicks was passing the night, and Marshal Kane informed me that a telegram had been received that other troops were to come to Baltimore over the Northern Central Railroad. There was also a report that troops were on their way who, it was thought, might even then be at Perryville, on their way to Baltimore. Mr. Lowe, Marshal Kane, my brother, John Cumming Brown, and myself went immediately to the chamber of Governor Hicks and laid the matter before him.
The point was pressed that if troops were suddenly to come to Baltimore with a determination to pass through, a terrible collision and bloodshed would take place, and the consequences to Baltimore would be fearful, and that the only way to avert the calamity was to destroy the bridges. To this the governor replied, "It seems to be necessary," or words to that effect.
He was then asked by me [Mayor Brown] whether he gave his consent to the destruction of the bridges, and he distinctly, although apparently with great reluctance, replied in the affirmative. I do not assert that I have given the precise language used by Governor Hicks, but I am very clear that I have stated it with substantial correctness, and that his assent was unequivocal, and in answer to a question by me which elicited a distinct affirmative reply.
After this, but before the interview was over, two gentlemen came into the room, both of them strangers to me, but one was introduced as the brother of Governor Hicks, and I am confident that the assent of the governor to the burning of the bridges was repeated in the presence of those gentlemen.
I went immediately from the Chamber of the governor to the office of the marshal of police, where Charles Howard, esq., the president of the board of police, was waiting, and reported to him the assent of the governor to the destruction of the bridges.
Mr. Howard, or some one else, made a further inquiry as to what had been said by the governor, whereupon Mr. Lowe, Marshal Kane, and my brother, John C. Brune, all declared that they were present at the interview and heard Governor Hicks give his assent.
The order to destroy the bridges was accordingly given, and carried out in the manner already reported to your honorable body. I refer to the accompanying statements of Colonel Kane and Mr. J. C. Brown in confirmation of the correctness of my recollection of what occurred at the interview with Governor Hicks.
With great respect, your obedient servant, GEO. WM. BROWN, Mayor.
Well it took about ten seconds to find this on the 'net.
Walt
[I]n the case of Swartwout and Bollman, arrested in this city in 1806 by general Wilkinson. The Court there declared, that the Constitution had exclusively vested in Congress the right of suspending the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus, and that body was the sole judge of the necessity that called for the suspension. "If, at any time," said the Chief Justice, "the public safety shall require the suspension of the powers vested in the Courts of the United States by this act, (the Habeas Corpus act,) it is for the Legislature to say so. This question depends on political considerations, on which the Legislature is to decide: Till the Legislature will be expressed, this Court can only see its duties, and must obey the law." 4 Cranch 101.
This leads me to the examination of the power of suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus, and that which it is said to include, of proclaiming Martial Law, as noticed in the Constitution of the United States. As in the whole article cited, no mention is made of the power of any other branch of government but the Legislative, it cannot be said that any of the limitations which it contains extend to any of the other branches. Iniquum est perimi de pacto id de quo cogitatum non est. If, therefore, this suspending power exist in the executive (under whose authority it has been endeavoured to exercise it) it exists without any limitation, then the president possesses without a limitation a power which the Legislature cannot exercise without a limitation. Thus he possesses a greater power alone than the house of representatives, the senate and himself jointly.
Again, the power of repealing a law and that of suspending it (which is a partial repeal) are Legislative powers. For eodem modo quo quid constituitur, eodem modo destruitur. As every Legislative power, that may be exercised under the Constitution of the United States, is exclusively vested in Congress, all others are retained by the people of the several states.
Justice Martin, Johnson v. Duncan, 3 Mart. 530 La., (1815)
How many decisions does it take?
Sounds like you have strange view of the process. Do you understand bail hearings and the rest of the process? How will this person be out killing "tens of thousands" of people (making him the most sucessful terrorist in history) while he is in jail?
Someone is nuts, but if it is the other poster it's not evident from anything he has said so far.
Ummmm......... this would support the idea that the executive branch is not bound by Art. 1, section 9.
Walt
Our President said that Padilla "is a bad man, and he needs to be locked up." That should be enough.
< /Kool-Aid >
Clearly the order was given by the Governor and not the Mayor. Provide information they kicked in the Governor's door on the same night please. Or for that matter Mayor Brown's door
Yep. And I suspect that we're gonna get a chance to see that very thing for real, sooner than we think.
You're playiing Monty Python's black knight again.
Walt
You should read the Constitution
I've read both. The 42 decision stands firm.
It is not exactly the same as Merryman. In 1861, Federal troops were being attacked by mobs in Baltimore. Seven states had passed legislation that codified rebellion and treason.
That is a substantial difference from the situation today.
Walt
From the 1942 SCOTUS decision: "It is unnecessary for present purposes to determine to what extent the President as Commander in Chief has constitutional power to create military commissions without the support of Congressional legislation. For here Congress has authorized trial of offenses against the law of war before such commissions."
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.