Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nolu chan
My point is, and has been, that President Lincoln violated the Constitution.

Your point is wrong.

If he had someone arrested after a case with language like that of Milligan had come down, that would be one thing, or if he had kept someone incarcerated -after- such a ruling, that would be one thing. He never did that.

When Milligan was arrrested, as he said, the Constitution allowed HB to be suspended. The Constitution does not have any territorial limitations; it doesn't say HB may be suspended only in active theaters of war.

You neo-rebs throw up your hands, "oh my gosh, look what Lincon did!", when there is nothing to it.

Walt

715 posted on 05/01/2003 10:09:57 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies ]


To: WhiskeyPapa
My point is absolutely correct. The court held that Milligan's Constitutional rights were violated. The trial of civilian Milligan by military tribunal was unlawful. The Court ruled that it was unlawful when it happened. The decision was 9-zip.
723 posted on 05/01/2003 1:25:28 PM PDT by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson