[GOPcapitalist]

Andy Jackson was not President in 1815, nor did he have the power of Congress to suspend the writ. You have tried the "Jackson did it" line many times, Walt, and every one of them has been responded to by noting this fact. I cannot recall even once, however, when you acknowledged it as a response. You normally lie instead and dishonestly claim that nobody has addressed your point about Jackson.

If you want to look at historical precedents though, I direct your attention to Thomas Jefferson in 1807. A possibility of suspending the writ came up with circumstances pertaining to the Aaron Burr affair, but Jefferson knew he could not suspend it unilaterally. So instead he asked Congress to consider the matter, which they then debated at length.

And an Ex Post Facto sanctioning of either Jackson or Lincoln is unconstitutional, by the way.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Andy Jackson was not President in 1815, nor did he have the power of Congress to suspend the writ.

And yet Congress indicated that his action was necessary and proper.

There were no telegraphs in 1815. The Brits were at the gates, so to speak. By the logic Taney later applied, it would have taken an act of Congress specifically naming the persons to be detained under the suspension of the Writ.

That would have taken months that General Jackson didn't have. President Lincoln was also faced with a dire situation not admitting of delay.

The fact that you deny President Lincoln (and General Jackson) the right to apply necessary and proper courses of action really means very little.

It's all "Mean old Lincoln kicked our butts!" from the neo-rebs.

Walt