Exactly, at that point (1863) the suspension of habeas corpus became
at least arguably constitutional, but not before, or else why the need for
the statute?  Lincoln and the Congress knew he was wrong, and so took action
to clean up the problem in accordance with the Constitution; but only after
Lincoln had been ignoring the requirements of the Constitution for two years.
 No, the president has no powers not contained in the Constitution, or
otherwise  contained in statute duly enacted by the Congress and signed into
law under the Constitution, or given to him by the courts in construing those
laws.  The leader who has the absolute discretion to do whatever he wants to
do is known as a despot, and the Founding Fathers didn't cotton too much to
that sort running the government.

       If Taney was such a poor jurist, why didn't the Lincoln administration
seek a hearing en banc of the Supreme Court after Merryman was issued to set
Taney straight, and why is that decision still the leading authority on that
point of law (that's a redundant question by the way)?

       Your other points appear to be differences without significance.

       I will drop the subject to avoid boring those not interested, unless
someone else jumps into the discussion.

       In Lincoln's case, the facts are the facts, and the fact he was
assassinated doesn't magically erase his lawless actions as president, or
make them acceptable under the Constitution and consistent with his oath of
office.  Some historians (but certainly not all) need to separate their
patriotism and their emotions from the cold, hard facts, something many I
have encountered have a real problem doing when the facts don't comport with
the politically correct environment in which academics interact, or the
opinion of someone who has written more books then they have.

JDS

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html