Lincoln authorized to suspend Habeas Corpus?
Submitted by BmoreBrawler on Fri, 05/08/2009 - 22:15
The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9 which states:
"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."
Seems like Lincoln was within his rights to me. He suspended the writ to jail perceived rebel sympathizers in the North and there were some southern invasions of the North too. I'm not saying Civil War was justified but it seems like this one facet of it is not as bad as it seems. It also means that the government has a lot of power in suppressing a revolution that does not come in the form of legal state secession.
»
I forgot to mention.....
Habeas corpus should only be suspended when the courts are not functional. There was not a crisis with the court system during the Civil War, which is another reason why habeas corpus should not have been suspended.
And for anybody who wants to read The Real Lincoln, it is available as a free download from the Mises Institute.
One of the most eye-opening
One of the most eye-opening books I have ever read, recommended by Dr, Ron Paul himself, is The Real Lincoln.
After reading this book, which is packed with documentation and evidence, I believe Lincoln was nothing more than a thug. He may well have been one of the worst, if not the worst, president in our Nation's history.
Suspending habeas corpus is only the tip of the iceberg. Its a really good read and will challenge everything you ever learned about ol' Honest Abe in school.
Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!
This is listed in the
This is listed in the legislative article, implying that if habeas corpus is to be suspended, it should be done by Congress, not the president.
Ummmm... suspending Habeus Corpus to jail war protesters...
is a big deal.
We're talking about jailing "perceived rebel sympathizers," people whose only crime was to apparently 'appear' to be sympathetic to the South.
If you look at it, philosophically what he did is quite comparable what Bush has done. In fact Lincoln's acts are arguably more heinous, as the constitutional rights of the individuals being harassed were not in doubt, and they would have been held on American Soil-- IE Lincoln had far less bullshit legal cover.
Really the only time and place I can think of where it might be appropriate to suspend Habeas Corpus would be during the middle of a war on a battlefield. Anything short of that, is just the executive branch trying to get its way without observing the law.
To be blunt, I couldn't care less if you think "Lincoln was within his rights" to do what he did-- I would certainly be well within mine, if I had shot him for trying that crap.
Sic semper tyrannis.
**Note** I would like to say that I sometimes tend to be hard on Lincoln just to make up for all the ultra-nationalists who who idolize him.