VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
paul finkelman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:14:00 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (65 lines)
by the way, there is no other example of a presidential suspension of HC because with the
exception of the War of 1812, there is no other time when the condistion required by Art.
I, Sec. 9 where in place; "rebellion and actual invasion"

[log in to unmask] wrote:

>         Forget the hypothetical case, because those weren't the facts in
> Lincoln's action.  There were no enemies at the gate in May of 1861.  The
> Fort Sumter exchange, forced by Lincoln, had taken place on April 12th, and
> Lincoln was in a panic since his tough guy strategy backfired on him and he
> had forced the country into war without any serious negotiation with the
> Southern states.  Sure, if Martians flew down and zapped the Capital, as in
> "Mars Attacks", the exigent circumstances would exist for the president and
> the military to do what had to be done to repulse the space invaders.  But
> this has nothing to do with Lincoln's unconstitutional, illegal, and
> tyrannical actions that we have discussed
>
>                 "has traditionally been suspended under emergencies by
> executives"
>
>         Please enlighten me, in response to your above assertion, of one
> other situation since Lincoln's presidency where an American president has
> taken action without the prior approval of the Congress pursuant to Article
> 1, Section 9, to suspend habeas corpus.  It has never happened, and you
> should know it.
>
>        I am afraid that your approach is regressing in the manner taught in
> law school:  if the law is on your side, argue the law; if the facts are on
> your side, argue the facts;  if neither the law or the facts are on your
> side, just argue.  You have neither the law (Cf Ex Parte Merryman and Ex
> Parte Milligan), or the facts (Cf Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution)
> to support your position, so you are arguing hypothetical facts which didn't
> exist and were no bases for Lincoln's obviously unconstitutional action.
>
> JDS
>
> (Oh, as stated previously during my participation, I am)
>
> Jeffrey Duke Southmayd
> Somewhat Less Than Distinguished Attorney at Law
> Southmayd & Miller
> 1220 19th Street, N.W.
> Fourth Floor
> Washington, D.C. 20036
> (202) 331-4100
> [log in to unmask]
> <A HREF="www.southmayd.net">www.southmayd.net</A>  My Southmayd family genealogy site.
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK  74104-3189

phone 918-631-3706
Fax   918-631-2194
e-mail:   [log in to unmask]

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US