M
Mohacs1251
Guest
Fixed typo
[td]On May 28, Taney stated from the bench that the President can neither suspend ''habeas corpus'' nor authorize a military officer to do it, and that military officers cannot arrest a person not subject to the rules and articles of war, except as ordered by the courts. Taney noted that, while the marshal had the right to call up the ''[[posse comitatus (common law)|posse comitatus]]'' to assist him in seizing General Cadwalader and in bringing him before the court, it was probably unwise for the marshal to do so, as the civilian and military authorities might collide and violence ensue, and thus Taney would not punish the marshal for failing in his task. He then promised a more lengthy, written ruling within the week and ordered that it be sent to President Lincoln, "in order that he might perform his constitutional duty, to enforce the laws, by securing obedience to the process of the United States".<ref name=merryman148 />[/td] [td][/td]
[td][/td] [td]Critics of Taney believe that he was a partisan Democrat and an opponent of Lincoln and that his politics influenced his decision in ''Merryman.'' This criticism may have support in the fact that the Taney Court should have dismissed the [[Dred Scott v. Sandford|''Dred Scott'']] case after finding "that the Court had no jurisdiction over Dred Scott's case because he was not a citizen" but instead choose to rule that the [[Missouri Compromise]] was unconstitutional despite that issue not being before the Court. In ''Merryman'', Taney's decision to deny General Cadwalader time to consult the president and dispatch a [[US Marshal]] to arrest him during a Civil War and bring him before his court demonstrated partisan corruption on Taney's part. On the other hand, partisan Democrat or not, Taney's ''Merryman'' opinion was arguably a simple application of well-established law and consulting the president was irrelevant for General Cadwalader because Lincoln didn't have jurisdiction. Lincoln was also critical of Taney because of his ruling in the ''Dred Scott'' case. The case became historic because not only did President Lincoln refuse to comply with Taney's ruling, [[Executive privilege|which does have precedent]], but he directly violated it by continuing the suspension without congressional approval. It has never been squarely determined whether the president has any independent authority to suspend ''habeas corpus'', or whether Lincoln's intentionally violating Taney's ruling without legal consequence stands as a precedent.[/td]
[td]Critics of Taney believe that he was a partisan Democrat and an opponent of Lincoln and that his politics influenced his decision in ''Merryman.'' This criticism may have support in the fact that the Taney Court should have dismissed the [[Dred Scott v. Sandford|''Dred Scott'']] case after finding "that the Court had no jurisdiction over Dred Scott's case because he was not a citizen" but instead chose to rule that the [[Missouri Compromise]] was unconstitutional despite that issue not being before the Court. In ''Merryman'', Taney's decision to deny General Cadwalader time to consult the president and dispatch a [[US Marshal]] to arrest him during a Civil War and bring him before his court demonstrated partisan corruption on Taney's part. On the other hand, partisan Democrat or not, Taney's ''Merryman'' opinion was arguably a simple application of well-established law and consulting the president was irrelevant for General Cadwalader because Lincoln didn't have jurisdiction. Lincoln was also critical of Taney because of his ruling in the ''Dred Scott'' case. The case became historic because not only did President Lincoln refuse to comply with Taney's ruling, [[Executive privilege|which does have precedent]], but he directly violated it by continuing the suspension without congressional approval. It has never been squarely determined whether the president has any independent authority to suspend ''habeas corpus'', or whether Lincoln's intentionally violating Taney's ruling without legal consequence stands as a precedent.[/td] [td][/td]
[td][/td] [td]Taney filed his written opinion on June 1, 1861, with the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland. In it, he argued at length against Lincoln for granting himself easily abused powers. Taney's opinion was based in large part on the fact that the Suspension Clause is located in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and "This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department".<ref>Schwartz, Bernard. ''A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States'', p. 250 (MacMillan, 1963).</ref> Taney also asserted that the President was not authorized to suspend ''habeas corpus'' because only Parliament, not the King, had such powers under English law. Referring to other provisions in the Bill of Rights, Taney wrote:[/td]
[td]Taney filed his written opinion on June 1, 1861, with the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland. In it, he argued at length against Lincoln for granting himself easily abused powers. Taney's opinion was based in large part on the fact that the Suspension Clause is located in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and "This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department".<ref>Schwartz, Bernard. ''A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States'', p. 250 (MacMillan, 1963).</ref> Taney also asserted that the President was not authorized to suspend ''habeas corpus'' because only Parliament, not the King, had such powers under English law. Referring to other provisions in the Bill of Rights, Taney wrote:[/td]
Continue reading...
| Line 61: | Line 61: |
[td]
β Previous revision
[/td][td]
[td]On May 28, Taney stated from the bench that the President can neither suspend ''habeas corpus'' nor authorize a military officer to do it, and that military officers cannot arrest a person not subject to the rules and articles of war, except as ordered by the courts. Taney noted that, while the marshal had the right to call up the ''[[posse comitatus (common law)|posse comitatus]]'' to assist him in seizing General Cadwalader and in bringing him before the court, it was probably unwise for the marshal to do so, as the civilian and military authorities might collide and violence ensue, and thus Taney would not punish the marshal for failing in his task. He then promised a more lengthy, written ruling within the week and ordered that it be sent to President Lincoln, "in order that he might perform his constitutional duty, to enforce the laws, by securing obedience to the process of the United States".<ref name=merryman148 />[/td]Revision as of 03:44, 30 August 2025
[/td][td]On May 28, Taney stated from the bench that the President can neither suspend ''habeas corpus'' nor authorize a military officer to do it, and that military officers cannot arrest a person not subject to the rules and articles of war, except as ordered by the courts. Taney noted that, while the marshal had the right to call up the ''[[posse comitatus (common law)|posse comitatus]]'' to assist him in seizing General Cadwalader and in bringing him before the court, it was probably unwise for the marshal to do so, as the civilian and military authorities might collide and violence ensue, and thus Taney would not punish the marshal for failing in his task. He then promised a more lengthy, written ruling within the week and ordered that it be sent to President Lincoln, "in order that he might perform his constitutional duty, to enforce the laws, by securing obedience to the process of the United States".<ref name=merryman148 />[/td] [td][/td]
[td][/td] [td]Critics of Taney believe that he was a partisan Democrat and an opponent of Lincoln and that his politics influenced his decision in ''Merryman.'' This criticism may have support in the fact that the Taney Court should have dismissed the [[Dred Scott v. Sandford|''Dred Scott'']] case after finding "that the Court had no jurisdiction over Dred Scott's case because he was not a citizen" but instead choose to rule that the [[Missouri Compromise]] was unconstitutional despite that issue not being before the Court. In ''Merryman'', Taney's decision to deny General Cadwalader time to consult the president and dispatch a [[US Marshal]] to arrest him during a Civil War and bring him before his court demonstrated partisan corruption on Taney's part. On the other hand, partisan Democrat or not, Taney's ''Merryman'' opinion was arguably a simple application of well-established law and consulting the president was irrelevant for General Cadwalader because Lincoln didn't have jurisdiction. Lincoln was also critical of Taney because of his ruling in the ''Dred Scott'' case. The case became historic because not only did President Lincoln refuse to comply with Taney's ruling, [[Executive privilege|which does have precedent]], but he directly violated it by continuing the suspension without congressional approval. It has never been squarely determined whether the president has any independent authority to suspend ''habeas corpus'', or whether Lincoln's intentionally violating Taney's ruling without legal consequence stands as a precedent.[/td]
[td]Critics of Taney believe that he was a partisan Democrat and an opponent of Lincoln and that his politics influenced his decision in ''Merryman.'' This criticism may have support in the fact that the Taney Court should have dismissed the [[Dred Scott v. Sandford|''Dred Scott'']] case after finding "that the Court had no jurisdiction over Dred Scott's case because he was not a citizen" but instead chose to rule that the [[Missouri Compromise]] was unconstitutional despite that issue not being before the Court. In ''Merryman'', Taney's decision to deny General Cadwalader time to consult the president and dispatch a [[US Marshal]] to arrest him during a Civil War and bring him before his court demonstrated partisan corruption on Taney's part. On the other hand, partisan Democrat or not, Taney's ''Merryman'' opinion was arguably a simple application of well-established law and consulting the president was irrelevant for General Cadwalader because Lincoln didn't have jurisdiction. Lincoln was also critical of Taney because of his ruling in the ''Dred Scott'' case. The case became historic because not only did President Lincoln refuse to comply with Taney's ruling, [[Executive privilege|which does have precedent]], but he directly violated it by continuing the suspension without congressional approval. It has never been squarely determined whether the president has any independent authority to suspend ''habeas corpus'', or whether Lincoln's intentionally violating Taney's ruling without legal consequence stands as a precedent.[/td] [td][/td]
[td][/td] [td]Taney filed his written opinion on June 1, 1861, with the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland. In it, he argued at length against Lincoln for granting himself easily abused powers. Taney's opinion was based in large part on the fact that the Suspension Clause is located in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and "This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department".<ref>Schwartz, Bernard. ''A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States'', p. 250 (MacMillan, 1963).</ref> Taney also asserted that the President was not authorized to suspend ''habeas corpus'' because only Parliament, not the King, had such powers under English law. Referring to other provisions in the Bill of Rights, Taney wrote:[/td]
[td]Taney filed his written opinion on June 1, 1861, with the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland. In it, he argued at length against Lincoln for granting himself easily abused powers. Taney's opinion was based in large part on the fact that the Suspension Clause is located in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and "This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department".<ref>Schwartz, Bernard. ''A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States'', p. 250 (MacMillan, 1963).</ref> Taney also asserted that the President was not authorized to suspend ''habeas corpus'' because only Parliament, not the King, had such powers under English law. Referring to other provisions in the Bill of Rights, Taney wrote:[/td]
Continue reading...
