Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights
Unprecedented?
Imagine if a U.S. President ever suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, in order to prevent protests and civil disobedience. Imagine if that same President declared Marshall Law, giving the United States military the full and absolute authority close down "hostile, anti war newspapers," and to arrest individuals for protesting the war. What if that President, when ordered by the SCOTUS, to bring those prisoners before the court, had the Chief Justice placed under military arrest? What if that President sent the country into never before seen debt, to pursue a war that most people didn’t see a need for? What if that President oversaw a Department of Defense that awarded fat, lucrative contracts to political cronies? What if that President heartily encouraged the immigration of poor immigrants...to fill the ranks in a shrinking Army?
Would you say that it’s time to rebel?
The President was Abraham Lincoln, a president who is held in the highest of esteem in American classrooms. And this abuse of power was perpetrated on Northern soil…not Southern. This all took place after the Southern states decided to bid the U.S. a fair adieu.
I just find it funny how these things work.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution
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.
|
Lincoln called for the suspension after the attack on Fort Sumter by Confederate troops. This was the start of the Civil War.
The fact is that the US isn't officially at war with anyone, and there definitely isn't a civil war here. It's unprecedented that the writ be suspended when there is no rebellion or invasion, as are the only cases allowed by the Constitution to suspend habeas corpus. I'm surprised you didn't recognize this fundamental and singularly important distinction between Lincoln and Bush so far as habeas corpus.