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
An ex post facto law is unconstitutional, Wlat. Try again.
There were no telegraphs in 1815.
So what. The Constitution does not care whether people communicate by telephone, telegraph, or tying a little piece of paper to the leg of a trained pigeon.
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.
It appears, based on the ruling, that a law suspending habeas corpus would have sufficed.