Replies

But in case you engage in your typical ad hominems against Taney's person, a second justice from the north also had an eyewitness view to the civil war. Benjamin Curtis, the famed dissenter on Dred Scott, wrote a legal textbook on the presidency in 1862 in which he too found Lincoln's actions unconstitutional even in the scenario where they happened.

Lincoln ignored Taney because he could. Had the whole Court supported Taney's position in Merrymanit would have changed things. But Taney had no chance of getting the majority to go along with his interpretation.

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote a book on this very subject. What it really comes down to is whether we accept his interpretation or yours.

Walt

It's such a joke to see these criticisms of Lincoln for violating Habeus Corpus for 14 thousand people when the South did it for millions for generations, and when Davis did it for every single soul in the south for months at a time.

Lincoln ignored Taney because he could.

It is truly peculiar how people who adamantly deny the concept of state nullification, which at least has some historical and scholarly merit to it in the early days of the republic, are also always the first to embrace a strange concept of "executive nullification" against the courts the second that habeas corpus ruling against Lincoln enters into the picture. Oh well. I guess consistency simply isn't your thing, Walt.

Had the whole Court supported Taney's position in Merrymanit would have changed things.

The only reason that never happened is because Lincoln, the loser, refused to appeal his loss to the full court.

But Taney had no chance of getting the majority to go along with his interpretation.

Considering that the entirity of the founding fathers, plus all the judicial rulings up until then, plus the plain reading of the constitution itself say that Taney was CORRECT in his ruling, that is unlikely.

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote a book on this very subject.

Yes. You've quoted it many times and it is no more correct now than it was the first time. The simple fact is that, of all the qualified jurists who have ever written on that clause, the overwhelming majority of them have said the power belongs only to congress.