Funny. A few weeks ago you were saying that none of the cases of the time meant much of anything because everybody else was entitled to his own interpretation of that document you hate and curse, the U.S. Constitution.
I didn't say any such thing.
What I said then and say now is that people in the ACW era went by different standards than we do today. One of those standards is that rulings of the Supreme Court only applied to the particular case.
In this case, we have a case, (or cases) these are the Prize Cases.
From the Prize Cases:
"It has the same commission, and none other, which gives authority to the President and to Congress -- the Constitution. It arose at the creation of this Government, coeval and coordinate with the Executive and Legislature, independent of either or both. More, it was charged with the sublime trust and duty of sitting in judgment upon their acts, for the protection of the rights of individuals and of States, whenever "a case" should come before it, as this has come, challenging the Constitutional authority of such acts."
"...whenever a case should come before it."
Such cases came, and the Court ruled that the president had the right --under law-- to put down the rebellion.
A "case" never came before the court in the matter of Habeas Corpus during the ACW.
Walt
I didn't say any such thing. (YOU)
Yes you did. On interpreting the constitution:
"The Executive branch has as much right to interpret the Constitution as the Judicial branch did." - WhiskeyPapa, 12/11/2002 SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/804008/posts?q=1&&page=1#90
On your hatred of the constitution:
"As you doubtless know, the separation of powers in that Pact with the Devil we call our Constitution, gives only Congress the right to raise and spend money." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02 SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=432#432
What I said then and say now is that people in the ACW era went by different standards than we do today.
That's nice, but it doesn't give the president the right to counteract or ignore a court ruling because he doesn't like what it orders him to do.
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply...The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution." - Marbury v. Madison, 1803
One of those standards is that rulings of the Supreme Court only applied to the particular case.
Nonsense. Previous court rulings act as precedents to guide rulings on current particular cases. That's how our legal system works and has worked for centuries, Walt. In The Lincoln's case one such precedent emerged (Bollman) when an actual case pertaining to The Lincoln arose on the circuit court (Merryman).
In this case, we have a case, (or cases) these are the Prize Cases.
If that is your position, go for it. Consistency dictates that you also must concede another case at the time on another issue, Merryman. But we both know that you won't because Merryman shows that your false god was fallible, and you simply cannot bring yourself around to conceding that little fact.
A "case" never came before the court in the matter of Habeas Corpus during the ACW.
Yes it did, Walt. It was called Ex Parte Merryman and the U.S. Circuit Court ruled against your false god in it. If The Lincoln didn't like that, it was his constitutional burden to appeal it to the highest court. Instead he ignored it thereby committing what would have been in other times an impeachable offense.
"Those respecting the press, religion, & juries, with several others, of great value, were accordingly made; but the Habeas corpus was left to the discretion of Congress, and the amendment against the reeligibility of the President was not proposed by that body." - Thomas Jefferson, autobiography, 1821.