The Constitution nowhere says what the president may do in regards to the Writ. It only says what Congress may or may not do.
As I have suggested before, the perception of the powers of the three branches was different in 1861 than it is now. The power of the Supreme Court extended only to - particular cases-. Had the issue come before the Supreme Court in the form of a -case-, which it never did, and Lincoln ignore -that- then you might have a beef with Lincoln.
You are making an historical judgment on an historical person.
I think we can pretty much say that the current Chief Justice is familiar with all your data and he said (as you know):
"Lincoln, with his usual incisiveness, put his finger on the debate that inevitably surrounds issues of civil liberties in wartime. If the country itself is in mortal danger, must we enforce every provision safeguarding individual liberties even though to do so will endanger the very government which is created by the Constitution? The question of whether only Congress may suspend it has never been authoritatively answered to this day, but the Lincoln administration proceeded to arrest and detain persons suspected of disloyal activities, including the mayor of Baltimore and the chief of police."
-- Chief Justice William Rhnhquist, November 17, 1999.
Walt
Sure it does - nothing. Since the writ itself is enumerated specifically to the legislature's domain, logic dictates that it cannot be implicit to the executive's power. As I have evidenced thoroughly, practically every founding father and early constitutional scholar to weigh in on this subject agrees with me on this. All you've got is Abe Lincoln, the culprit himself, and Bill Rehnquist. Your sources simply do not compare to mine. Therefore you lose.
As I have suggested before, the perception of the powers of the three branches was different in 1861 than it is now.
Irrelevant. The evidence conclusively demonstrates that the reading of the constitution under its original intent by the men who framed it sought the suspension power to be the domain of the legislature. The Lincoln had no credible reason to act as he did.
The power of the Supreme Court extended only to - particular cases-.
Marbury termed it as the following: "The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution." That being noted, there was a particular case in 1861 called Ex Parte Merryman. The Lincoln ignored it because he didn't like the outcome.
Had the issue come before the Supreme Court in the form of a -case-, which it never did
It never came before the Supreme Court because The Lincoln refused to appeal it there even though it was his burden to do so. Try again.
and Lincoln ignore -that- then you might have a beef with Lincoln.
So in other words, you are saying he's free to ignore a circuit court ruling but not a supreme court ruling?
You are making an historical judgment on an historical person.
Yup, and I'm doing so by providing overwhelming historical evidence that the act of that historical person was unconstitutional.
I think we can pretty much say that the current Chief Justice is familiar with all your data and he said (as you know):
It's unfortunate if the guy is wrong, but that's just the way things go some times. He can call the issue unsettled all he wants, but that will never change the fact that the constitutional convention's records indicate the power was legislative, not executive.
Needless to say, my list including Taney, Marshall, Jefferson, Rawls, Story, the ratification debates, and Madison's notes from the constitutional convention still outweighs your list containing the crime's perpetrator and Rehnquist. But by all means try again, Walt. I enjoy watching you make an idiot of yourself.