Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: bjs1779
Jackson suspended the Writ in 1814, and he wasn't even president.

I think he had to pay a 50,000 dollar fine in the process for his arrogance too.

Well, you're wrong, of course. And this is why Jackson's example at least mitigates anything President Lincoln did.

Jackson did suspend the Writ while a British army was proximate to New Orleans. He arrested several citizens including a judge. After the British army withdrew Jackson rescinded his suspension and the judge promptly fined him $1,000. There the matter stood for nearly 30 years, when Congress refunded the money with interest and their thanks.

It is at best a cloudy issue who can suspend the Writ.

Consider this:

"Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Habeas corpus is a concept of law, in which a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held. A writ of habeas corpus can be issued by a court upon a government agency (such as a police force or the military). Such a writ compels the agency to produce the individual to the court, and to convince the court that the person is being reasonably held. The suspension of habeas corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge. Suspension of habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.

Because of this connection of the two concepts, it is often argued that only Congress can declare martial law, because Congress alone is granted the power to suspend the writ. The President, however, is commander-in-chief of the military, and it has been argued that the President can take it upon himself to declare martial law. In these times, Congress may decide not to act, effectively accepting martial law by failing to stop it; Congress may agree to the declaration, putting the official stamp of approval on the declaration; or it can reject the President's imposition of martial law, which could set up a power struggle between the Congress and the Executive that only the Judiciary would be able to resolve."

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html

The fact that neo-rebs hate Lincoln has nothing to do with the Writ and everything to do with race.

You hate Lincoln because he helped advance human rights.

You make personal attacks on me because the record won't suit you.

Walt

127 posted on 02/08/2003 3:17:07 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]


Some quick comments before I head to bed.

1. The anti-Americans lost.

2. The anti-Americans should have lost.

3. The anti-Americans supported slavery.

4. The anti-Americans started the civil war.

5. Those who call it the "war of northern aggression" probably subscribe to Million Man Math.

6. Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents who ever served this country.

7. Lincoln was a Republican.

8. The anti-Americans started the Klan.

9. The anti-Americans started them there Jim Crow laws.

10. As much as I love the South, I'm ashamed of what we did to the Union and what we did to halt civil rights.

11. Song of the South is one of the greatest movies ever made.

12. Shellin' peas and pickin' cotton or harvesting cotton would not have held the South up if they would have won.

13. Saddam Hussein can kiss my a$$.

14. I would vote to bring down the confederate flag, and I also believe it's up to the people to decide.

15. Bush is a conservative, not a libertarian.

16. Did I say that Hussein can kiss my a$$?

17. Yes, those sweet magnolias blossom 'round everybody's door.

18. Might I add Uday to the a$$ kissing list?

19. I think I'll add Chirac and Schroeder to that list as well.

20. Finally, Lincoln changed when he realized that slavery was going to tear this country apart.

21. Nobody ever said the Union didn't have racists.

22. We're better off because of Lincoln's leadership. Good-night everybody! :)

129 posted on 02/08/2003 3:44:36 AM PST by GOPyouth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies ]

To: WhiskeyPapa
You hate Lincoln because he helped advance human rights.

Where did I say I hate Linclon? I just disagree with what he did. He has been dead an spat upon enough for me to hate him. I still reserve my right to say he was wrong, if that is okay the liberal and commie faction of this country? Since I could take it that you hate "Washington and a bunch of White guys", I don't see where I steered off course in our debate.

You make personal attacks on me because the record won't suit you.

About the only thing I ever called you Walt was a communist. If you talk like a commie, I don't think you should take it personally, that's just the way it is. Like it or not. If I attack you personally, please take to the moderator or Jim Robinson and have me banned.

158 posted on 02/08/2003 5:48:30 PM PST by bjs1779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson