Seems pretty open and shut to me unless one believes that the Constitution is a living document, subject to twisting to suit the purposes of those in power. Here are some excerpts from Taney's opinion in Ex Parte Merryman.
The clause of the constitution, which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, is in the 9th section of the first article. This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department. It begins by providing 'that all legislative powers therein granted, shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives.' And after prescribing the manner in which these two branches of the legislative department shall be chosen, it proceeds to enumerate specifically the legislative powers which it thereby grants [and legislative powers which it expressly prohibits]; and at the conclusion of this specification, a clause is inserted giving congress 'the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.' [skip paragraphs]
It is the second article of the constitution that provides for the organization of the executive department, enumerates the powers conferred on it, and prescribes its duties. And if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article; but there is not a word in it that can furnish the slightest ground to justify the exercise of the power.
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.
Then Congress should have seen fit to amend the Constitution.
WhiskeyPapa, you've endlessly cited rulings by Chief Justice Marshall to support your theories of government. As you no doubt noticed, Taney cites the following words of Marshall in Ex Parte Merryman: "If at any time, the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide; until the legislative will be expressed, this court can only see its duty, and must obey the laws."
Here is Taney again:
...I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.
Jackson is in New Orleans threatened by a British army. He's the executive on the spot, and he feels compelled to suspend the Writ.
If the victory at New Orleans was a close run thing and the suspension of the Writ was one of the items vital to that victory, should Jackson have just resigned himself to defeat because there was no way he could get the Congress to suspend the writ in a timely fashion?
You are relatively new here, so you may not have seen the oft-posted assertion by the current Chief Justice that presidential power to suspend the Writ has still yet to be definitively answered.
Walt
Well, let's turn this back on the "secession on demand" crew.
Where does the Constitution EXPLICITLY forbid the president from suspending the Writ?
Walt