A right to interpret the Constitution individually does not supersede the right of the court to exercise judicial review as established under Marbury. Marbury made that VERY clear - "The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution." Try again.
You are applying modern day standards to an historical person.
Not at all, Walt. What you are alleging to be the practice of the day - an absurd notion that logically dictates all court rulings void on simple disagreement with them elsewhere - was simply not the practice of the day. No ammount of saying otherwise is going to change that. Your desparation sure is showing though!
Taney was acting as a circuit court judge. President Lincoln's attorney general supported the president's actions. If Taney had a problem with that, he should have had the issue brought before the Supreme Court.
The Constitution only says what Congress may -not- do in regards to the Writ; it says nothing about what the president --may-- do.
If you are going to take this tack you need to raise your hand and swear off ever saying that secession is legal because it is not explicitly prohibited.
Walt
Yeah, you're right. Andrew Jackson suspended the Writ 47 years before Lincoln did, and he wasn't even president.
Walt