Was it Constitutional for Lincoln to suspend Habeas Corpus during the Civil War?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joey m
  • Start date Start date
J

joey m

Guest
And if so...then why do liberals scream that the Patriot Act as passed by Congress and signed into law by the President is so unconstitutional?
Before you start screaming that the Patriot Act violates what ever amendment the liberal talking heads told you it violates, I suggest you read the following...

Article I Section 9
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section9

During the Civil War and Reconstruction and during the War on Terrorism the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus was substantially curtailed for persons accused of engaging in certain conduct.

And this...
It should be noted that the privilege of habeas corpus is not a right against arrest, but rather a right to be released from imprisonment after such arrest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States
If you believe you are being arrested illegally, and refuse to come quietly rather than petition the court for a writ of habeas corpus, even if you are correct in the belief that the arrest is being made without legal merit, you are still guilty of resisting arrest. If you believe you are being imprisoned illegally, "tell it to the judge."
Readers' Digest (1985). You and the Law. Readers' Digest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States
Well Pat do you have a title or an ISBN?
Here's the Patriot Act

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

Now I tell you what, when you get appointed to the Court and the Court decides to hear a case involving the Patriot, I'll listen to your opinion (consenting or dissenting) regarding the constitutionality of the Patriot Act.
Since the Court has not ruled that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional do you thing that maybe you can get the liberal talking heads to quit lying to the people.
O.K. Pat and Robert, please help me understand this...19 foreign nationals illegally enter this country with the intent of murdering our citizens and we were not invaded? Why because they were not wearing their official uniforms? They didn't have a patch on their sleeves? They committed the worst act of terrorism this country has ever known. What part of their actions was not an "invasion"?
 
Can we agree that rebellion was not an issue?

The US was not invaded.
The 19 people primarily responsible for 9/11 died in the attack.

Get a complete copy of the constitution and read the entire document, including the FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, AND EIGHTH amendments.

Reader's Digest and Wikipedia are not Constitutional authorities.
 
To answer your question:

I would suggest that you rephrase your question if you are looking at getting an answer. The reason a rephrasing is needed is because no court cases challenged the suspension at that time AND even if they had, they would be out of date by now.

A better question, which speaks to the same facts as your question, is "In a time of national emergency, may the executive suspend a constitutional right." The answer is yes. I see you've already cited the specific Constitutional provision, so I'll skip that.

I would recommend that you read Korematsu v. United States. This case challenged the U.S.'s program of arresting and detaining all Japanese-Americans on the West Cost during World War Two. In that case's majority decision, Justice Jackson essentially said:

1) The detention of Japanese-Americans was unconstitutional.
2) The military commanders were correct in ordering their detentions.
3) This is the most important: "COURTS CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO OBSTRUCT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES."

Number three is a striking revelation from a Supreme Court justice, isn't it? Drawing an analogy, the answer to your question is: Yes, the suspension was illegal BUT the court was correct in refusing to enforce the right.

As to your question: The Patriot Act waives search and seizure protections, permits secret courts, and does a number of other unconstitutional things. Arguing, even immediately after 9/11, that our nation was in a level of danger analogous to 1864-5 America would be patently absurd. Because the threat was lower and because the Patriot Act's curtailment of liberty is arguably greater, the law should be revoked.
 
In all fairness the situation is not the same as the imploding war in our own country that took place in the 1860's.

I am all for the death of terrorists, and I support the Patriot Act, but your argument is filled with uncredible "proofs" and logical fallacies.

You deny Pat's argument because he does not give you the ISBN to his book, even though it is irrelevant to the case, and you compare the Civil War to an attack committed by 19 people that weren't even all from the same country?

If you ever stepped foot into a courtroom, you would get mauled.
 
Back
Top