1866 SCOTUS Ruling Still Stands

[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...