Talk:Ex parte Merryman

message: This article seems to take a very Lincoln-apologist stance on his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.  Perhaps conflicting historical views need be involved?
--68.52.68.18 04:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think this section has NPOV problems. It's fairly anti-Lincoln in sum, but I think that's perfectly fair, since he was (according to the Supreme Court) violating the Constitution. I say this as someone with a generally very high opinion of Lincoln. I vote pull the NPOV tag and leave the article as-is. jackbrown (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I don't know if people check up on these things, but the links to the Poole and Rehnquist books both lead to dead ends.
140.247.175.126 06:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken Links

message: Through his actions in Dred Scott etc., Taney had already managed to destroy any respect for himself among a very large number of people in the North/Union years before Merryman -- and many people thought that he remained behind on the Supreme Court (instead of fleeing south) because he had the traitorous intention of conducting malicious judicial vandalism and sabotage operations, in order to hinder the North's war efforts.  That's why Lincoln suffered very little political damage from Merryman -- just about everybody who supported Taney was already a political opponent to Lincoln.... AnonMoos (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Should be a little more on the political background

message: This really needs to be explained. I don't see anything in the Andrew Jackson article that would shed light on this, either.  Anyone know what this is about? 111.233.10.80 (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Jackson famously simply ignored a supreme court decision on Indian land rights; don't know if it's directly relevant to Merryman (Worcester v. Georgia suggests legally not really)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  citing Andrew Jackson before him 

message: This Wikipedia article says: "Its legal argument holding that Congress alone may suspend the writ is noted for reiterating the opinion of John Marshall and the court in Ex parte Bollman and was recently restated by the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld."  No source is provided.  So it either needs a "citation needed" tag or should be removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I inserted some footnotes and reorganized this material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced sentence

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ex parte Merryman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141006084544/http://ehistory.osu.edu/uscw/features/articles/articleview.cfm?aid=34 to http://ehistory.osu.edu/uscw/features/articles/articleview.cfm?aid=34
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ex parte Merryman. 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/20080111110628/http://teachingamericanhistorymd.net/000001/000000/000017/html/t17.html to http://teachingamericanhistorymd.net/000001/000000/000017/html/t17.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080519222040/http://teachingamericanhistorymd.net/000001/000000/000016/html/t16.html to http://teachingamericanhistorymd.net/000001/000000/000016/html/t16.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) 02:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I expanded this paragraph to include details about why some have said that "Taney was a partisan democrat that gave a biased ruiling" and why others have said that he was only following "well established law. I clarified that last statement about the Supreme Court not addressing the issue of haebus corpus so the true controversy is understood: the court decision about haebus corpus was established by tanners ruling and is currently the standard to this day. The controversy comes from Lincoln directly violating Taney's ruling. Lincoln suffered no legal consequence as result nor did the army who followed his orders because the court was powerless to enforce their own ruling if the president declined to do so and the court never said if this establishes a precedent or not. 
Critics of Taney believe he was politically a partisan Democrat and an opponent of Lincoln and that his politics infected his decision in Merryman. There is precedent for this criticism because the Taney Court should have dismissed the Dred Scott case after finding "that the Court had no jurisdiction over Dred Scott's case because he was not a citizen" but instead choose to rule that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional despite that issue not even being litigated before the court in a politically partisan ruling that favored the now rebellious slave holding states in the south that Taney was from. In this case, Taney's decision to deny General Cadwalader time to consult the president and dispatch a US Marshal to arrest him during a Civl War and bring him before his court demonstrated partisan corruption on Taney's part. On the other hand, partisan Democrat or not, Taney's Merryman opinion was arguably a simple application of well established law and consulting the president was irrelevant for General Cadwalader because Lincoln didn't have jurisdiction. Lincoln was also very critical of Taney because of his ruling in the Dred Scott case. The case became historic because not only did President Lincoln refuse to comply with the courts ruling, which does have precedent, he directly violated it by continuing the suspension without congressional approval. The truth of the matter has never been addressed by the Supreme Court of the United States nor has it squarely determined if the President has any independent authority to suspend habeas corpus or if any precedent was set by the president intentionally violating the courts ruling without legal consequence. -- 21:16, 15 October 2020 Samsongebre
:If anyone was going to stand up for civil rights in the North or Union during the Civil War, then for practical political reasons, it could not be Taney -- since Taney had an extremely toxic reputation among many in the North after Dred Scott, and any decision he made to restrain the powers of the U.S. government would have been interpreted by large numbers of people as a spiteful act of treason, intended to help the Confederate cause by means of malicious judicial sabotage of the U.S. war effort.  No judgment on issues of this nature could be neutral or a mere "application of well-established law" in the eyes of many in the North if Taney was behind it.  Lincoln's personal opposition to the Dred Scott ruling didn't really matter for Merryman -- it was the opinion of large number of northerners about the ruling and Taney personally which enabled Lincoln to defy Taney over Merryman.  See the #Should be a little more on the political background section above... AnonMoos (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding and clarified one paragraph is Decision section