'What' is that you said "Lincoln was not condemned the way you do --at the time--." Yet Justice Taney condemned him --at the time-- for the same action I condemn him today. Hence your statement is a lie.
The Executive branch has as much right to interpret the Constitution as the Judicial branch did.
But NOT the right of judicial review of the other branches which, established firmly in Marbury, is the main judicial check on the power exercised by the other branches. Try again, Walt.
But NOT the right of judicial review of the other branches which, established firmly in Marbury, is the main judicial check on the power exercised by the other branches. Try again, Walt.
What I am seeing in the record is that Marbury gave the Court the right to judge cases, not to counteract the Executive. That is what Lincoln's comments in his inaugural address mean.
Lincoln was under -no- charge, based on the standards of the day, to release Merryman based on anything Taney did or said as a circuit court and certainly not based just on an Ex Parte decision.
Walt
I don't think so. You are the one high and dry here.
You wail and whine about President Lincoln's actions and cite just the one person, the pretty much discredited Roger Taney.
Of course you excuse the secessionists, who had neither legal or moral grounds for their actions.
You need to find criticism of Lincoln in the record contemporary with his actions. This throwing up of hands, "Eek, look what mean old Lincoln did!" is just the same thing, as I say, that changed Columbus from great hero and explorer to syphilitic oppressor of minorities.
"The success of the Maryland policy became a political byword and was celebrated, beyond the borders of Maryland, throughout the war...Republicans would later enjoy substantial bipartisan agreement on the necessity of the early arrests in Maryland.", says Dr. Neely.
Your carping is just sour grapes.
Listen, why don't you try for a hearing on that Muslim CNN, whatever it's called? They love tearing down America too.
Walt