Talk:Ex parte Milligan

message: Seems to me a reference to this case (with its own page herein) is merited. Ditto a ref to Gitmo & Iraq.  Trekphiler 13:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Ex parte for an explanation. To sum up, there's no x v. y because one side is petitioning regarding habeas corpus. --Rajah 10:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ex parte Quirin]] 

message: The infobox listed Chase's opinion as a "dissent", which it really isn't.  It concurs in the judgment, but disagrees with some of the court's reasoning.  In modern terminology, that would be an opinion "concurring in the judgment"; a "dissenting" opinion actually disagrees with some substantive part of the majority's holding.  Chase's opinion says as much pretty explicitly in the first paragraph:
:Four members of the court, concurring with their brethren in the order heretofore made in this cause, but unable to concur in some important particulares with the opinion which has just been read, think it their duty to make a separate statement of their views of the whole case.
I've changed the wording accordingly, but thought I'd leave a note here. --Delirium 09:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon digging through the page history it seems it actually used to say "concurrence", but was changed pretty recently to "dissent" in the midst of a move from a raw table to the template syntax.  I assume it was just a typo then, so no harm done. --Delirium 09:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chase's opinion 

message: Is the opening sentence of this article correct?  The ruling was that martial law was unconstitutional when civilian courts are operating, not that suspension of HC was unlawful in these circumstances.  This article itself, under the decision section, says the Court decided the suspension of HC was lawful.208.180.21.22 (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holding 

message: I'm curious why this isn't grounds for a suit against the US Government's treatment of "Enemy Combatants" since 9/11.  The courts are certainly functioning, so this precedent seems to say that the USSC would not accept the use of military tribunals.  I'm sure greater legal minds than mine have thought about this, but I think a mention is in order.JakartaDean (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An excellent question, & something I wondered, too. It bears addressing.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  20:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applicability to "Enemy Combatants" after 9/11? 

message: What is controversial about being "one of the first cases after the end of the American Civil War"?119.224.100.246 (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. What was controversial was Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War as a means to control dissenters in the North, now clarified in the opening paragraph and in the Backgound section of the article. Rosalina523 (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ex parte Milligan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725084836/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/71/2.html to http://laws.findlaw.com/us/71/2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725084836/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/71/2.html to http://laws.findlaw.com/us/71/2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725084836/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/71/2.html to http://laws.findlaw.com/us/71/2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified