1866 SCOTUS Ruling Still Stands

[jasper2408]

This is not related to 2A but one of these days it might be since it was mentioned by the Blue State governors to try and take our guns because of the "Covid emergency". This case was actually started in Indiana back around the time of the civil war. It doesn't matter what the case was about as the final ruling covers all made up national emergencies that politicians can think up. (Correction: This does not cover state emergencies, only national emergencies). This is actual United States law that stands to this day.



SCOTUSruling.PNG

[grayfox]

This is apparently a clipping, where does it come from?
And what is section 98, and who is being quoted, especially in the second paragraph? This 2d paragraph can't be from 1866 since it mentions 50 states...

[jasper2408]

The first quote in the clip is from the transcript of the case but below, which is also from the transcript, seems to state it better.

We agree in the proposition that no department of the government of the United States-neither President, nor Congress, nor the Courts--possesses any power not given by the Constitution.

The two quotes at the bottom of the clip are from "16 American Jurisprudence 2d", which is a legal encyclopedia of United States law. I wasn't able to read those quotes to know what cases they came from.

The quotes from the clip pertains to the Federal government only.

[HKGuns]

Context and honesty are important, this is FaceBook crap that has spread like wildfire and not only taken completely out of context, it has been manipulated, as those words are not in the ruling.

Below is the actual text of the case, that was a case about a man who claimed he was imprisoned unlawfully in the State of Indiana. This case was not about the merits or not of martial law.

[jasper2408]

Context and honesty are important, this is FaceBook crap that has spread like wildfire and not only taken completely out of context, it has been manipulated, as those words are not in the ruling.

Below is the actual text of the case, that was a case about a man who claimed he was imprisoned unlawfully in the State of Indiana. This case was not about the merits or not of martial law.

The case was about whether the military(Federal government) had the right to declare martial law and suspend habeas corpus(make up an emergency to suit their needs) in a state that was not under seige while the state courts were intact. What was decided was that the government could not just make up emergencies to suit their needs. The guy was guilty as sin and the military sentenced him to hang but the SCOTUS overruled his verdict as unconstitutional and he was released. Whether the state recharged him or not I do not know.

All of the text that you are claiming not to be from the document at the beginning of the clip are in the SCOTUS document that I referenced, which is the actual text from the court decision and is over 140 pages long. That text is stating what rights the government has when it pertains to the military and there are 3 instances that are stated in the decision, which is the text at the beginning of the clip. My quote was from pages 136-137 of the ruling. Maybe the people on Facebook should do more research so they can actually know what they are talking about.

Just to add: One of the lefty news services claim that they tried to find any evidence of the ruling I stated in the document and couldn't. All I can say to that is they didn't look very hard.

[LR1955]

The case was about whether the military(Federal government) had the right to declare martial law and suspend habeas corpus in a state that was not under seige while the state courts were intact. What was decided was that the government could not just make up emergencies to suit their needs. The guy was guilty as sin and the military sentenced him to hang but the SCOTUS overruled his verdict as unconstitutional and he was released. Whether the state recharged him or not I do not know.

All of the text that you are claiming not to be from the document at the beginning of the clip are in the SCOTUS document that I referenced, which is the actual text from the court decision and is over 140 pages long. My quote was from pages 136-137 of the ruling. Maybe the people on Facebook should do more research so they can actually know what they are talking about.

HKG:

How about going into this and citing the parts that support your argument?

The last paragraph seems to support Jasper very clearly.

LR-55

[HKGuns]

HKG:

How about going into this and citing the parts that support your argument?

The last paragraph seems to support Jasper very clearly.

LR-55

How about not, I really don't care enough to argue. Believe what you want, I am not here to change your minds.

The entire document needs to be read in context, not picked apart to suit your desires.

[grayfox]

The case was about whether the military(Federal government) had the right to declare martial law and suspend habeas corpus(make up an emergency to suit their needs) in a state that was not under seige while the state courts were intact. What was decided was that the government could not just make up emergencies to suit their needs. The guy was guilty as sin and the military sentenced him to hang but the SCOTUS overruled his verdict as unconstitutional and he was released. Whether the state recharged him or not I do not know.
...

I located this decision and read a lot of it, well not all but a good portion. And I don't do Fakebook so I don't know what or how this is being bandied about on there, nor care about that much. the decision does seem to lay out what Jasper talks about (quote above) above, however there are some real caveats that factor in when applying it to today (fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be).
1. The country had just emerged from the Civil War and while Indiana (my home state btw) was invaded, it was not under that at the time of his arrest nor was any of it under enemy hands with courts closed down. So all of that had a big impact on everyone's thinking in 1866, some for good, some for not so good. By the accounts I read, the guy was a scumbag but unjustly tried in a military court and deprived of constitutional rights.
2. The Dimms and hidnbidin/garland et al don't seem to feel any real need to actually adhere to the law or Constitution.
3. I haven't done any research on whether/when martial law can be declared by law, as modified from 1866-today.
4. The Supreme Court back then was a "strict constructionist" on the Constitution as it should be, but lots of courts today are not.
5. The case most specifically begins with a military arrest, so it might not be correct to say "Military(federal government)".

6. I don't know if the decision handles whether a person could be arrested/habeus-withheld for some indefinite period of time, just not brought to trial... particularly by non-military law enforcement. Not saying this would be right or even justified, just that this case began with a military arrest. But in the decision's terms, cancelling habeus is severely limited under some specific circumstances, two of which are that the territory is at war/in control of enemy forces and the US courts are closed down.... But refer to #2 above also!

But I do think it could be of some value if/when an unjust "martial law" might get imposed...

[keystone183]

How about not, I really don't care enough to argue. Believe what you want, I am not here to change your minds.

The entire document needs to be read in context, not picked apart to suit your desires.

So, how about post the entire document? Instead of just picking parts that suit your desires....

[jasper2408]

Here is a link that has the whole case. There are page numbers inside the text so you can keep track of where you are at. I did not try and download the .pdf file.

https://casetext.com/case/ex-parte-milligan/?PHONE_NUMBER_GROUP=P

Grayfox,

This case came about because the military said that Indiana was under martial law at the time and Abraham Lincoln(Federal government) suspended habeas corpus for this case and state even though the state was not under siege by the Confederates. So both the military and the Federal government was told to go pound sand with this decision. What came out of this case was that the Federal government doesn't have the power to make up an emergency to fit there needs. This case did not affect the Martial Law or suspension of habeas corpus in the south after the civil war because that was considered a land under siege.

The most recent court decision that comes to mind that might be related to this is the one where the Biden Vax mandate got struck down because the President
cannot make up laws on a federal government perceived emergency and that the constitution does not give him the power to do what they tried to do. It will be interesting to see when this hits the SCOTUS, if it does, to see what reason they give for their decision.

[LR1955]

How about not, I really don't care enough to argue. Believe what you want, I am not here to change your minds.

The entire document needs to be read in context, not picked apart to suit your desires.

My desires?

I asked because I didn't know how you came to your conclusion.

You quoted it, you ought to know enough about it to say why.

LR-55