Author of the The Real Lincoln to speak TODAY at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia

[GOPcapitalist]

Tell that to the Chief Justice.

Better yet. I'll tell it to two Chief Justices who agree completely with it - Marshall and Taney. Two beats one, Walt.

I'll also tell it to two more Justices who agree with it - Curtis and Story. That makes four, and four also beats one. Live with it.

The Constitution nowhere says what the president may do in regards to the Writ.

To the contrary, Walt. It is a logically inescapable legal situation that he may not act in to suspend the writ. This is proven in the following terms:

P1. The writ may only be suspended by Article I, Section 9's clause.

P2. Article I, Section 9's clause is vested in the legislature as stated by the Constitution.

Premise 2 necessarily precludes anybody but Congress from acting on Article I, Section 9's clause. Premise 1 necessarily precludes habeas corpus from being suspended by any means other than Article I, Section 9. Even your false god admitted that much.

If habeas corpus may only be suspended by Article I, Section 9's clause, and Article I, Section 9's clause may only be invoked by the legislature, it is logically IMPOSSIBLE for the president to legally or constitutionally suspend habeas corpus.

[GOPcapitalist]

Taney caused President Lincoln some embarrassment with this, but he could have caused more had he gotten the issue before the whole court. He never did.

It is the burden of the LOSING party to appeal a court ruling, Walt. The loser in the Merryman case was Lincoln's administration. If Lincoln disagreed with the decision, it was his burden under the United States Constitution and its established judicial system to either (a) live with the ruling despite his dislike for it or (b) appeal it and seek to have it overturned. Simply ignoring it cause you don't like it is not a legally or constitutionally valid option.

[GOPcapitalist]

Merryman stayed in jail.

Yeah, cause Lincoln unconstitutionally violated the judicial system of the United States by ignoring the ruling.

It should be noted that Merryman had participated in treasonous acts when arrested

Yet he was never charged with treason, therefore his arrest was in violation of habeas corpus.

Mercy atttended everything Lincoln did. Merryman was exceedingly lucky not to be hanged.

Though it was often the case that Lincoln's government executed people without due process, in order for Merryman to have been hanged legally, he would have first had to have been charged with a crime and then convicted of that crime and sentenced to hanging. No such act ever occurred.

[WhiskeyPapa]

If you read Bruce Catton's "This Hallowed Ground", you'll see him noting that the Lincoln administration took the "first trick" in the war. By securing the border states of MO, KY and MD, the rebellion was pretty much done before the war even was well started.

I guess you have no comment on the rebel invasion of Kentucky.

Too, Lincoln didnt have to send his "army" to Missouri. Local federal authorities and loyal Union men there were able and active.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Though it was often the case that Lincoln's government executed people without due process...

Such as? Names?

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Taney caused President Lincoln some embarrassment with this, but he could have caused more had he gotten the issue before the whole court. He never did.

It is the burden of the LOSING party to appeal a court ruling,

Taney was the losing party. His reputation went completely into the toilet, over this and Dred Scott.

Notice that Chief Justice Rehnquist says the question of who may suspend the Writ has never been "authoritatively" answered. He has all your sources, but he is more fair than you are.

You've seen the quote I use from him at least a half dozen times, and you still do not qualify your interpretation by including it.

I have not yet felt compelled to just out of the blue say, "President Lincoln had every right to suspend the Writ and no one can gainsay this!"

But I do feel compelled to respond when you try and BS people.

I would think that you get some Freepmail from those who don't appreciate your ignoring this important addition to the record -- the remarks of the current chief justice. Maybe you do. And yet no hint of fairness manages to sneak into your notes.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

For you to state that the South had no right to secede, denies the very right of the colonies to secede from the British Empire

Legally the colonies had no right to declare independence. That's why it was called a 'revolutionary' war and also why the founding fathers weren't surprised when they had to fight for their freedom. Unlike the confederates they didn't pretend that their actions were legal by referring to it as 'secession'. Another difference is that the founding father's won their war. They must have wanted victory more that you sothron types did, huh?

[Non-Sequitur]

So who should I trust - the History Channel or the Wlat Brigade? I'll take the History Channel.

If we're talking about the same program, "April 1865: The Month That Saved America" then I don't think either Walt and I will dispute it. The fact that in March 1865 the confederate congress passed legislation authorizing the raising of black combat troops is undisputable. What I dispute is the ridiculous claim that the confederate army enlisted blacks in combat roles throughout the war. The evidence against that is overwhelming. Any blacks with the confederate army prior to the spring of 1864 were there in an unauthorized, in fact illegal status. At that time the confederate congress passed legislation authorizing the enlistment of free blacks and slaves for support roles only.

[Non-Sequitur]

In fact, there were plans made at various times throughout the war to appoint such a judiciary, including some supported by the administration.

The confederate constitution did not mince words. The judicial power of the confederacy was to be vested in one supreme court and such other courts as the congress would establish. It's right there in black and white. So what you're saying is that Davis and the congress deliberately ignore the constitution by refusing to establish the one institution which could keep them from ignoring the constitution? Neat trick. And you complain about Lincoln.

[4CJ]

That has nothing to do with the nature of the Union.

Jefferson - "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union ..."

What time do the men in white coats wake you up every morning? Your assertion has got to be the most INSANE comment I ever read. Somewhere a village is missing their idiot.

[WhiskeyPapa]

I was referring to #318. You are such a dishonest bum.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

One of the worst cases happened in Missouri...

What a crock of crap! Missouri was split, like the other border states, on the question of secession. While it is true that the state convention voted unanimously not to secede in March 1862, the arsenals that you speak of were federal arsenals and Governor Jackson had no legal right to seize them. So the sending of militia to seize it was illegal. You say that 'feds responded by marching the U.S. army on the state capital to oust the governor and state legislature' which is nonsense, and that 'the state government convened in October in the town of Neosho' which is false. The legislature remained in office, and Claiborne Jackson was impeached and removed from office. It was the impeached governor and the minority of the state senate which met in Neosho and voted secession, something that they lacked the authority to do. So Missouri remained legally in the Union throughout the war, and while she did send men to fight on both sides the majority fought for the Union.

[Grand Old Partisan]

I appreciate all your thoughtul message, but further debate between us on this sbuject is pointless. My loyalties are to the United States of America -- then, now, and forever.

[Coop]

Corin, you've been on this forum for years and have always been able to argue your point forcefully, yet respectfully. Then we have a rude yahoo who's been here for five or so months who insinuates folks with opposite opinions are David Dukes, Simon Legrees, slavocrats, etc. You obviously wasted some of your precious time here, but at least some of us have benefitted by now knowing what to look out for.

What I find particularly amusing is that RW lists Ronald Reagan as one of his idols. Must have missed that whole "Eleventh Commandment" thing.

[SCDogPapa]

"Isn't 'Rebelyell' a brand of cheap bourbon or something? "

Nope,,,,,,it is NOT cheap liquor! LOL!

[Corin Stormhands]

Thanks Coop.

[Corin Stormhands]

Marx adored Lincoln and sang his praises in the form of arguments not unlike those you are currently using right here on this forum.

Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark.

[republicanwizard]

No, you are not Republicans; therefore, the 11th Amendment doesn't apply to you. You are neo-Confederates who wish that this nation had been broken up in 1860 for good? Do you realize that the country you say you love so much would not exist if it were not for the Civil War?

[republicanwizard]

That is a LIE.

Go read the Beards, neo-Marxists, and read what they say about Lincoln. They call him a fool, etc.

Please remember that Marxist history calls for a destruction of someone like Lincoln's reputation.

[republicanwizard]

If Marx really liked Lincoln, I'm sure a good Marxist, collectivist like you would adore Lincoln. So it isn't the case.