~ Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, pp. 137-8 ~
Think about that the next time you blast President Lincoln over Ex Parte Merryman. In the ACW era, each branch of the government interpreted the Constitution for itself. Judgements of the Supreme Court were binding only on parties to the suit. If Taney wanted to prove a point in regards to Merryman, he should have gotten the case before the whole court.
Walt
Lincoln's defiance of the court in Ex Parte Merryman demonstrated his criminal behavior, as confirmed by Ex Parte Milligan. It is further confirmed by the resolute refusal of Congress to ratify his unlawful acts.
If Lincoln wanted to appeal, if was his responsibility to appeal. As he did not appeal, it was his duty to comply. He chose instead to violate the law, as was his wont.
Judgements of the Supreme Court were binding only on parties to the suit. And only Jane Roe won the right to abortion.
In the ACW era, each branch of the government interpreted the Constitution for itself. Article III, Section 1, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
I believe you have somehow misunderstood what Mr. Breckinridge was saying (perhaps you should have read past the first sentence). He was stating that Mr. Lincoln's (the executive branch) unconstitutional actions could not be made constitutional by a simple act of Congress (the legislative branch). He is pointing out that the Constitution contained language that prohibited Mr. Lincoln from doing what he did, and which he blatantly ignored and violated. In order for his actions to become legal, the Constitution would have to be amended to remove or modify that language. How you got what you got out of what he said is beyond me.
If Taney wanted to prove a point in regards to Merryman, he should have gotten the case before the whole court.
Ridiculous. Ex Parte Merryman was the legal decision of a Federal District Court regarding a violation of the Constitution, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. If there was anyone who contested the Court's decision, they should have challenged it. But that someone didn't, did he? He simply ignored it just like he ignored the Constitution.