Eh??
SCOTUS has ruled to that effect. Only the Congress can suspend it and only when the courts are not operating. Habeas Corpus is not a privilege.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.That is the text of Article 1 section 9 clause 2 of the Constitution. Now do you believe in judicial nullification or something, like liberals might? We have a process for amending the Constitution, a document that you are displaying gross ignorance of with all due respect, and the SCOTUS is not involved in any way whatsoever. Nothing about Congress’ approval is in the Constitution at all.
You seem determined to be insulting by way of ignoring what I said. Twice you have been silent about what happened at Fort Sumter, which is argumentum ad lapidem (a logical fallacy; liberals are fond of using those).Not until after he had started the war.
Not to mention, Lincoln did indeed get Congressional approval in response to Fort Sumter, in special session.
Regrettably, you are once more displaying ignorance of the Constitution. Article 1 section 10 clause 1 is explicit on what states had agreed not to do, so this is not covered by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments:
(E)very state is sovereign and nowhere agreed to surrender their sovereignty to the federal government. Since the states nowhere granted the federal government the right or power to prevent secession, then under the 9th and 10th amendment, that is a power reserved to the states. When the constitution was ratified, 3 states expressly reserved the right to unilaterally secede. Every state understood itself to have that right. …
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant Letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.The CSA constitution says the exact same thing in its own Article 1, section 10, clause 1. So in the case of both these constitutions, secession is dimly viewed and is regarded as an act of rebellion against what the states agreed to. Now mind you, where the federal government instead breaks the laws, that gives the states the right to act since said federal government has been taken over by Constitution-hating rebels, the biggest example being what is happening at the southern border, where the federal government is plainly flouting the Guarantee Clause.
What invasion? Cite fact and not opinion, please. If Trump had acted in a more severe manner towards BLM in Minneapolis, that could have been regarded as “invasion of Minnesota’s territory” by liberals, correct? Think on the Guarantee Clause.
I cited the invasion of South Carolina’s territory …
No one can be measured when he is still alive. Jude him in 2040 then we shall see how he ranks.
"Only Congress has the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, either by its own affirmative actions or through an express delegation to the Executive. The Executive does not have the independent authority to suspend the writ." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus#:~:text=Only%20Congress%20has%20the%20power,authority%20to%20suspend%20the%20writ.
Not to mention, Lincoln did indeed get Congressional approval in response to Fort Sumter, in special session.
Not until after the fact. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ruled at the time in ex parte Merryman that Lincoln's suspension of Habeas corpus was unconstitutional. Subsequent SCOTUS decisions have affirmed that ruling.
Twice you have been silent about what happened at Fort Sumter, which is argumentum ad lapidem (a logical fallacy; liberals are fond of using those).
I addressed this right from the start. The Confederates fired to drive an invader away. Them firing was a RESPONSE to an act of war committed by the Lincoln administration - to wit, the armed invasion of their territory.
Not to mention, how is it a war? Did Congress recognize any self-declared seceded state as a separate country from the USA, much less the self-declared CSA? More like a coup d’état. That gives the POTUS broad scope to act per the little-used 1807 Insurrection Act.
There was certainly no coup. The Confederates never sought to depose Lincoln or the US Federal government nor did they seek to invade the territory of the Northern states or dictate to them how they should be governed. Why would any state need Congress to recognize them? They do not derive their sovereignty from Congress.
Regrettably, you are once more displaying ignorance of the Constitution. Article 1 section 10 clause 1 is explicit on what states had agreed not to do, so this is not covered by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments: No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant Letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. The CSA constitution says the exact same thing in its own Article 1, section 10, clause 1. So in the case of both these constitutions, secession is dimly viewed and is regarded as an act of rebellion against what the states agreed to.
No, I am afraid it is you who is ignorant as to what the Constitution says. Nowhere in that article does it say a state may not secede. The article only limits what a state may do while it is in the US. The Constitution is silent about secession. *IF* the power to unilaterally secede were not a power the states intended to reserve to themselves at the time that they ratified the Constitution, then why did 3 states pass these resolutions at the time of ratification?:
"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the general assembly, and now met in convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will...."
"We, the delegates of the people of New York... do declare and make known that the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions in certain specified powers or as inserted merely for greater caution."
"We, the delegates of the people of Rhode Island and Plantations, duly elected... do declare and make known... that the powers of government may be resumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; that Congress shall guarantee to each State its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution expressly delegated to the United States."
Nobody at the time of ratification of the Constitution said that these provisos were in any way inconsistent with the Constitution or that their ratifications were rendered somehow defective due to the passage of these provisions. Nobody argued that the provisions were in any way invalid. It is clear that the Founding Fathers who had only 8 years earlier concluded the Treaty of Paris recognizing their hard won state sovereignty after seceding from the British Empire had no intention of surrendering their sovereignty to the newly created federal government and binding their states forever to it. As Madison himself said in the federalist papers, membership in the union was voluntary:
...the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States.... Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act (Federalist 39).' James Madison
What invasion? Cite fact and not opinion, please. If Trump had acted in a more severe manner towards BLM in Minneapolis, that could have been regarded as “invasion of Minnesota’s territory” by liberals, correct? Think on the Guarantee Clause.
You realize federal warships had violated South Carolina's territorial waters and that Lincoln had sent a heavily armed fleet to invade South Carolina's territory again, right? I could list the warships, the weaponry and the size of the landing parties they could carry if you like. It does not matter what BS claims leftists would have made wrt President Trump. Minnesota had not seceded from the US. There could be no invasion of its territory by the federal government so long as it was in the US.