Replies

You will note that the suspension power falls exclusively under the domain of Congress (and don't give me any bullsh*t quotes by leftist hags like Sandra Day O'Conner arguing otherwise - no less sources than Jefferson, Marshall, and practically all of the founding fathers who said so much as a word about this clause explicitly identified it as the legislature's exclusive domain). It does not belong to the president. Lincoln exercised the suspension power without obtaining a bill from Congress to do so. For that reason his action was unconstitutional.

If you want it that way, then you have the Merryman case to hang on Lincoln which became moot because Merryman was released once Maryland settled down and before Congress returned. But when congress did return in July, they suspended the writ so I expect in the future that you will refrain from calling the subsequent actions unconstitutional and stop blaming them on Lincoln. In lieu of that, I would expect an equal, or even higher level of outrage from you towards Davis and the Confederate congress for their suspension of the writ throughout the war. That suspension hit people in the South you know.

BTW. Do you consider Wm. Renquist to be a leftist hag as well? Is anyone not invested in your Lost Cause Myths a leftist hag?

[Ditto]: If you want it that way, then you have the Merryman case to hang on Lincoln which became moot because Merryman was released once Maryland settled down and before Congress returned.

Either you or Walt is wrong then. Walt says Merryman was released 49 days after his arrest (Walt's post). Merryman was arrested on May 25, 1861. Congress reconvened July 4, 1861.

You two guys duke it out.

If you want it that way, then you have the Merryman case to hang on Lincoln which became moot because Merryman was released once Maryland settled down and before Congress returned.

It wasn't moot when the ruling was issued and when Lincoln chose to ignore that ruling.

But when congress did return in July, they suspended the writ

Evidently not, based on the congressional record. I pinged nolu chan because I recall him documenting the progression of the habeas corpus bills offered in 1861. IIRC not one of them passed and Congress in fact did not suspend the writ until sometime around 1863.

so I expect in the future that you will refrain from calling the subsequent actions unconstitutional

If Congress did not suspend the writ until 1863 I have no choice to call everything before that and some of the ones after it (i.e. the Milligan case) unconstitutional.

In lieu of that, I would expect an equal, or even higher level of outrage from you towards Davis and the Confederate congress for their suspension of the writ throughout the war. Not necessary. Davis followed the constitutional procedure for suspending the writ and had Congress do it. Nor was Davis' a blanket suspension of the writ handed over to military descretion like Lincoln's. It was a limited statutory suspension, and even after being enacted the state courts continued to issue writs within their own borders because the confederate view of states rights held that states shared a dual sovereignty with the national government.

BTW. Do you consider Wm. Renquist to be a leftist hag as well?

No, but he is mistaken in the case of habeas corpus. He may be a decent judge on other things but even the best judges are wrong some times. O'Conner is a leftist hag however. She is a leftist hag who has, through her actions and repeated constitutionally unsound rulings, forfeited any legitimate claim to her role as arbiter of that document no matter what her formal title and office might be. She is currently undeserving of her seat on that court and has forfeited any credentials that would otherwise entitle her to rule. She's a prime candidate for impeachment if their ever was one, and I make no reservations in saying that either.