Not at all. They won the case in the circuit court. Tell me, walt. Would you ever appeal against your own WIN in court?
Not at all. They won the case in the circuit court. Tell me, walt. Would you ever appeal against your own WIN in court?
They obviously won nothing worth winning in the circuit court, as the president ignored the ruling. Getting the issue before the whole Court would have put a lot more pressure on President Lincoln. Taney didn't pursue that.
More on habeas:
"Only Congress can suspend" was and is not "obvious." The phrase is in the Constitution where Congressional obligations are laid out but it does not limit the suspension to only Congress. Read Article I, Sec. 8 with its "Congress shall" and compare with sec. 9 which does not specifically lay out who is responsible. Reverdy Johnson, a very conservative Marylander, but also an unconditional Unionist, wrote a devastating attack on Taney's Merryman decision.
At the Constitutional Convention, the original proposal for this section of the Constitution made its suspension specially a power of the legislative branch but the legislative limitation was dropped when the convention took up the matter. A good precedent for the president to assume the power.
In 1861, the primary precedent for the executive branch suspending the writ had been Gen. Jackson in New Orleans in 1814-15. With the city under threat of imminent invasion by the British, Andrew Jackson declared martial law. Martial law remained in effect after the January battle, but rumors reached the city that peace was declared. Pierre Louaillier, the leader of the Louisiana State House of Representatives, wrote and published a letter attacked Jackson. The general responded by throwing Louaillier in jail and refusing a writ issued by Dominick Hall, the United States district court judge. When Hall issued the writ, Jackson not only ignored it, but arrested Hall and sent him beyond the lines. The very next day official word reached Jackson that the war was over. The general revoked martial law, freed all the political prisoners, and allowed Hall to return.
Hall then convened his court, and fined Jackson $1,000 for contempt for his refusal to recognize the court's writ. Jackson paid the fine under protest.
Thirty years later, in February 1844, the United States Congress ordered the fine refunded with interest from the date of Jackson's payment (31 March 1815). The bill passed the House 158 to 28 and there was no division in the Senate. With fine irony, the bill was supported by Southerners, both Democrats and Whigs and by Northern Democrats and was opposed by Northern Whigs.
The supporters' view was best expressed by Cong. James Belser, a Whig from Alabama:
"The suspension of the habeas corpus, which has ever been recognized under all free governments as the bulwark of liberty, could only take place in cases of rebellion or invasion—when the public safety absolutely required it be suspended. That was the limitation; and it was important to contemplate another point, viz: that the Constitution secures to every state a republican form of government. He admitted that there were but few cases which would authorize a commander in this country to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. But there were such cases, and they were above all law; they existed antecedent to the adoption of the Constitution and the formation of the Government. He contended that the facts, as they existed in this case fully justified General Jackson; and the gentlemen might as well attempt to turn the course of the Mississippi, as to endeavor to alter the public verdict which had been rendered by seventeen states of this Union in Justification of General Jackson." The last is reference to resolutions received by Congress from 17 state legislatures requesting the refund of the fine. The 17 included all of the then admitted states which would form the Confederacy—missing only Jackson's home state, Tennessee! [Congressional Globe, 28th Cong. 1st Sess., January 8, 1844, p. 119]
The $1,000 fine was not a small matter—as a major general, Jackson's base pay in 1815 was $2400 per year."
From the ACW moderated newsgroup.
Walt