Article I, Section 9, which falls under the rule of Article I, Section 1 placing it within the authority of Congress.
The Constitution says that the writ can be suspended under certain circumstances. It is silent on whether Congress is the only ones who can do it.
Wrong. Article I, Section 1 states "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Article I, Section 9's habeas corpus clause is "herein granted" under Article I. Thus it is "vested in a Congress of the United States." Not a single founding father thought anything different when they drafted that clause. Once again if you deny this, quote one for me and prove that I'm wrong.
Wrong. Article I, Section 1 states "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Article I, Section 9's habeas corpus clause is "herein granted" under Article I. Thus it is "vested in a Congress of the United States." Not a single founding father thought anything different when they drafted that clause. Once again if you deny this, quote one for me and prove that I'm wrong.
1. The suspending of the Writ is not a legislative power.
2. Not a single founding father thought that the Union was frangible either.
The absurdity of your position will be manfest to anyone who can think. Under your interpretation, the Writ could only be suspended when Cnngress was in session. In 1861, Congress had adjourned in the early spring was was not due to come back until Decmeber
Emergencies don't follow a schedule.
Walt
Why?
Article I, Section 1 states "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Where does it say that the writ can only be suspended through an act of legislation?