• SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 个月前

    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
      ·
      3 个月前

      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
        ·
        3 个月前

        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
          ·
          3 个月前

          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
            3 个月前

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