[OT] A More Reasonable Interpretation of POTUS vs. SCOTUS

Subject: [OT] A More Reasonable Interpretation of POTUS vs. SCOTUS
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 7/4/2004 3:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

I seem to recall Abraham Lincoln (arguably one of our best presidents if not
the best) also had a run in with the USSC over habis Corpus...
I have not ever witnessed any serious historical fallout concerning his
legacy...

This was quite a contentious issue in Lincoln's time.

The prevailing opinion is that the executive may suspend the Writ of Habeas
Corpus. The "executive" doesn't even have to be president. Andrew Jackson
suspended the Writ at New Orleans in 1814. Of course with no easy access to
Washington and the British literally at the gates, he had to act.

Lincoln did suspend the Writ. He was never challenged by the Supreme Court.
The
Chief Justice did write an Ex Parte decision in his role as circuit judge
excoriating the president, but the matter of whether the president may
suspend
the writ has not been authoritatively answered even now.

The Chief Justice, Taney, had said he favored a dissolution of the Union if
it
meant that slavery was threatened, so he was not very objective. This was the
same Taney that ruled in the "Dred Scott" ruling that blacks had no rights
that
whites were obligated to acknowledge, despite the fact that blacks could vote
in 5 states.

The question is why Bush has not just suspended the Writ, instead of
suggesting
he is above the law, which is the clear implication of the actions he's
taken
so far.

Walt



It was in Milligan Vs.US that Taney angered Lincoln by overturning Milligan's
death sentence And as a result we have Guantanamo today.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer