[WhiskeyPapa]

It wasn't unlawful when he did it.

Yes it was. The Constitution says so.

Then we don't need a Supreme Court, or anyt courts at all, do we?

The Constitution says not one word about what the president may or may not do in regard to the Writ.

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

The Constitution says not one word about what the president may or may not do in regard to the Writ.

Actually it says several by way of an inescapable conclusion of logic:

Article I, Section 9 outlines the only means by which habeas corpus may be suspended.

Article I, Section I says the powers in that article belong to Congress.

Article I, Section 9 is in Article I, therefore Article I, Section 9 belongs to Congress.

And since Article I, Section 9 is the only means by which habeas corpus may be suspended, its belonging to Congress also entails that only Congress may suspend it. This fact necessarily excludes any presidential claim to do the same. You have been shown this logical procession many times, Wlat, but not once have you ever addressed it. Nor do I suspect this one will be any different.