Replies

The question of whether or not the president can suspend habeas corpus has never been definitively answered, as Chief Justice William Rehnquist pointed out in a recent book. One would think that the Chief Justice would know what he was talking about, wouldn't you?

Non-Sequitur is correct that the question has not been definitively answered by the Supreme Court. However, Chief Justice Taney makes a very convincing argument that the power to suspend habeas corpus resides in the Congress, not the President. To paraphrase Non-Sequitur, one would think that Chief Justice Taney would know what he was talking about, wouldn't you?

Scroll down the following site to find Chief Justice Taney's convincing argument: Chief Justice Taney's argument concerning habeas corpus which begins at:

TANEY, Circuit Justice.
The application in this case for a writ of habeas corpus is made to me under the 14th section of the judiciary act of 1789 [1 Stat. 81], which renders effectual for the citizen the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. ....

Taney was no slouch.

One could respond that the author of the Dred Scott decision had some odd ideas of Constitutional law as well. But be that as it may, the case of the Presidential suspension of habeas corpus was never taken up by the entire court. Taney's ruling in Ex Parte Merriman was issued from the Circuit Court bench.

However, Chief Justice Taney makes a very convincing argument that the power to suspend habeas corpus resides in the Congress, not the President.

I think it would pretty hard to be convinced that the power to suspend HC rested only in Congress.

Congress was not in session much of the year back in this time frame. I don't know, but it seems like Congress was only in session 3-4 months out of the year. Not much of an emergency power if you have to wait several months to invoke it.

I think the people of the day knew that this was not practical, and that is why the Congress refunded the fine that Andrew Jackson paid for suspending the Writ with interest. Jackson wasn't even president.

President Lincoln had all the precedent he needed to suspend the Writ.

Those that think otherwise are just torqued off about the outcome.

Walt

Taney was no slouch.

Taney's influence generally was very bad. The habeas corpus thing isn't even the worst and most unreasonable thing he did.

The Taney court's attempt at social engineering in the Dred Scott case was an important factor in bringing on the war.

The court was attempting to settle political questions through judicial activism totally undounded in constitutional precedent.

How could Taney say in Dred Scott that blacks had no rights that blacks were bound to respect when blacks could vote in five states? Taney -was- a slouch when it came to his duties.

Walt