[WhiskeyPapa]

Yes it has, Walt. It's called Ex Parte Merryman.

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. Ex Parte Merryman is not a Supreme Court decision. But you will doubtless continue to use it to sway the ingnorant and dissatisfied.

Walt

[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.

[nolu chan]

30 Nothing President Lincoln did was beyond the powers of the president as described in the Constitution.

337 The Constitution nowhere says what the president may do in regards to the Writ. It only dictates what Congress may or may not do.

339 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. Ex Parte Merryman is not a Supreme Court decision. But you will doubtless continue to use it to sway the ingnorant and dissatisfied.

CJ Taney died October 12, 1964.

"The Constitution leaves open the question of who may suspend the writ, president or Congress. Abraham Lincoln did so on his own in 1863, arousing a storm of opposition, and Congress eventually approved the suspension retroactively. After the Civil War, the Supreme Court held in Ex parte Milligan that only Congress may suspend the writ, and it denied even Congress the power to suspend as long as civilian courts remain open. After World War II, the Court rejected Congress's suspension of habeas corpus and the declaration of martial law in Hawaii because the public safety did not genuinely require it, since the civilian government and courts continued to function and months after Pearl Harbor there was no longer a thread of invasion."

A Practical Companion to the Constitution, Lieberman, 1999, University of California Press, p.221

Citing:

Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946)

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/327/304.html

Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/71/2.html