You don't like big government, right? Sounds like the author above doesn't much care for it either. Of course it's Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural. President Lincoln made the point, and it was reiterated by the attorney general, that each branch of the government interprets the Constitution for itself. This was the view in 1861.
Judgments are only binding on the parties to that suit. If Taney wanted to score points against President Lincoln, all he had to do was get the Merryman/Maryland issue before the whole court; he didn't do that. He knew that the whole court would not take his side.
It's always so funny when the neo-rebs (maybe not you specifically) want to say, "show where the Constitution explicitly forbids secession" but discount me when I say show me where the Constitution explicitly says the president may not suspend the Writ.
Walt
I'm glad that you said "maybe not you specifically", because I'm definitely not a neo-reb. I'm a Yankee boy, born and raised. My father took me to quite a few Civil War battlefields, and I have more than a passing interest in military history, as do you.
My specialties are WWII and the Civil War, in that order. I was weaned on Bruce Catton. Lately, I've become concerned with the paradox of the Virginia Confederates. How is it that the cradle of Liberty could side with slavers, I asked myself.
I don't believe that these concerns can be answered with the glib histories of the victors, for we all know that history IS written by the victors.
Don't these questions cross your mind? The paradox of Robert E. Lee and Pickett's Division loom large in my thinking.