[GOPcapitalist]

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

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.

[WhiskeyPapa]

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

An ex post facto law is unconstitutional, Wlat. Try again.

It was certainly within the purview of the Congress to applaud General Jackson and refund penalty and interest to him. And it is a strong indication on how they viewed the issue. You are applying hindsight and malice in your interpretation.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

An ex post facto law is unconstitutional, Wlat. Try again.

Strictly speaking, an ex post facto law is one which makes illegal an act which was legal when committed, or increases the penalty for a crime after it was committed. An act of congress authorizing Jackson's actions after the fact doesn't qualify as an ex post facto law. Same with President Lincoln.