[GOPcapitalist]

That was the standard of the day. Taney said the Constitution meant one thing; the executive branch was within its rights --by the standards of the day-- to say it meant something else.

Your version of history is either a terrible misread or a willful distortion, Walt. Each branch of the Constitution was certainly within its rights to offer its own interpretation of the Constitution and, I would argue, still is today. But that does not mean other branches can simply ignore the check of judicial oversight when it is exercised by the courts. If it did, none of the major court rulings of the 19th century mean anything because they would be unenforceable against even a single differing opinion elsewhere in the government. If that is the way you want it, it is fine with me though...as long as you apply it consistently, which means I shouldn't expect to see you quoting your beloved Prize Cases anytime soon.

but I have just in the last week become familiar with Attorney General Baker's opinion on this.

The opinion of an attorney general does not carry the legal weight of the court's ruling, Walt, and has not carried the legal weight of the court's ruling since the beginning. Try again.

It's just silly to hold historical people to modern day standards.

It would be, but you have yet to demonstrate this is happening. Until then it appears obvious that you are grasping at straws as you drown in the sea of your own lies.

Andrew Jackson being reimbursed by Congress on a fine he paid for suspending the Writ -- he wasn't even president.

So what. Since when was it known that Congress always operates within the bounds of the constitution?

And the current Chief Justice saying that the question of whether the president can suspend the Writ has not been answered to this very day.

He can say it all he wants in speeches at every law school in the country. It still does not negate Bollman, the standing precedent on the matter. Try again.

[WhiskeyPapa]

But that does not mean other branches can simply ignore the check of judicial oversight when it is exercised by the courts.

That is a modern day idea. It was only starting to have currency in the 1860's. The idea current --then-- was that court rulings only applied to the specific case.

And Ex Parte Merryman was not even a case. It was an opinion, and the Executive branch was entitled to its own opinion, by the standard of the day.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

But that does not mean other branches can simply ignore the check of judicial oversight when it is exercised by the courts.

The courts? What courts? You mean Taney?

There was no case, there was an Ex Parte decision by a man who showed in Dred Scott that he cared nothing for the law.

Walt

[Dixie republican]

But that does not mean other branches can simply ignore the check of judicial oversight when it is exercised by the courts.

Didn't Jackson not even pay any attention to a SC ruling when he was President? I remember a quote by him, (paraphrase) "They can rule any way they want; let's see if they can enforce it."