3 ms·

No, there aren't such times. The suspension of habeas corpus by Lincoln was Constitutional: > Article I, Section 9: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

by mkehrt 11y ago

No, there aren't such times. The suspension of habeas corpus by Lincoln was Constitutional: > Article I, Section 9: 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.

rhino369 11y ago
The fact that that clause is in Article 1 suggests that Congress should be the one to suspend habaes corpus. But Lincoln did it unilaterally. But that is a debatable opinion.
wtbob 11y ago
The Southern states were not in a state of rebellion; they had constitutionally seceded.
- ianremsen 11y ago
  There is no mention of, or stated process for, secession of states in the Constitution. In Texas v. White: "Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states." In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#Supreme_Court_rulings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
  - wtbob 11y ago
    > There is no mention of, or stated process for, secession of states in the Constitution. You're exactly right! And the Tenth Amendment states quite clearly, 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' Since the Constitution gives the United States no power over secession, and does not prohibit it, then it's clearly reserved to the respective States, or to the people thereof. Secession is 100% legal; Texas v. White is no more compelling a precedent than Dred Scott v. Sandford. There's simply no other unbiased way to read the Constitution.

by mkehrt 11y ago

rhino369 11y ago

The fact that that clause is in Article 1 suggests that Congress should be the one to suspend habaes corpus. But Lincoln did it unilaterally. But that is a debatable opinion.

wtbob 11y ago

The Southern states were not in a state of rebellion; they had constitutionally seceded.

ianremsen 11y ago
There is no mention of, or stated process for, secession of states in the Constitution. In Texas v. White: "Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states." In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#Supreme_Court_rulings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
- wtbob 11y ago
  > There is no mention of, or stated process for, secession of states in the Constitution. You're exactly right! And the Tenth Amendment states quite clearly, 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' Since the Constitution gives the United States no power over secession, and does not prohibit it, then it's clearly reserved to the respective States, or to the people thereof. Secession is 100% legal; Texas v. White is no more compelling a precedent than Dred Scott v. Sandford. There's simply no other unbiased way to read the Constitution.