Article One, Section Nine, The United States Constitution:

"The privilege of the writ of Habeus Corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the
public safety shall require it."

As a number of folks have noted earlier, Lincoln had adequate
constitutional cause and mandate to suspend the writ, and the
courts upheld his action.  The issue in Ex Parte Milligan had
nothing to do with Habeus Corpus, but rather with whether or
not a military court could legitimately try Milligan, when
there was a functioning civil court available to the
government.  In the Milligan decision the Court went out of
its way to affirm the legitimate right of the President to
suspend the writ, and to clarify that in its decision, the
Court had no intention to suggest that Lincoln had behaved
improperly in doing so.  Lincoln could quite legitmately
detain Milligan indefinitley without bringing him to
trial--but if Lincoln's government *did* choose to bring him
to trial, they had to do so in a civilian court, if a
functioning civilian court was available to them.

The case is widely available, and anyone inclinded to disagree
with my interpretation above should first read it for
themselves.  I am working from the redacted version in
Hammond, Hardwick, and Lubert, CLASSICS OF AMERICAN POLITICAL
AND CONSTITUTIONAL THOUGHT, (Hackett Press, 2007), Volume One,
p. 1168.  You can find the paragraphs relevant to Habeus
Corpus on the left hand column of that page.  

Not that I am going to plug my own work, or anything :)

All best,
Kevin

---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:28:32 -0600
>From: John Philip Adams <[log in to unmask]>  
>Subject: Re: The Constitution  
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>What amendment grants Habeas Corpus? 
>
>John Philip Adams
>Texas 
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University

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