• SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 months ago

      As in my other reply, the Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or threats to public safety, and without that writ, charges and sentences are irrelevant.

      • rsuri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        5 months ago

        The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution contains a right to habeas corpus in Boumedine v. Bush. The Lincoln thing was never fully litigated and was probably unconstitutional.

        • hglman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          The Constitution doesn’t empower the court to interpret the constitution. If the executive chose to ignore the court it would be perfectly legal.

          • rsuri@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Well that’s an even older decision:

            Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law.

            • hglman@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Yes, the supreme Court gave itself that power. To that end the other branches could justifiably choose to not find that to be valid.