Talk:Ex parte Milligan

Ex parte Quirin
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)

Why is this case not of the form "x vs. y?" Iflipti 09:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Chase's opinion
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)


 * 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)

It is misleading to call Chase's separate opinion a concurrence. While the four justices did concur in the judgement, they dissented from the majority's opinion that it would have been unconstitutional for a military tribunal to try a civilian. The infobox identifies this as the finding of the case. Chase and the others found that while Milligan's trial by a military commission violated "the act of Congress of March 3d, 1863" it did not violate the Constitution, saying "We think that Congress had power, though not exercised, to authorize the military commission which was held in Indiana." and "We cannot doubt that, in such a time of public danger, Congress had power under the Constitution to provide for the organization of a military commission and for trial by that commission of persons engaged in this conspiracy. The fact that the Federal courts were open was regarded by Congress as a sufficient reason for not exercising the power, but that fact could not deprive Congress of the right to exercise it. Those courts might be open and undisturbed in the execution of their functions, and yet wholly incompetent to avert threatened danger or to punish, with adequate promptitude and certainty, the guilty conspirators." I have changed the infobox to list Chase's opinion as "Concur/dissent". Johhtfd (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Holding
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)

You are right. Finding a specific holding of 'antebellum' cases can be difficult. Here, I would cite the language in which Justice Davis writes, "If... the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to the law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course."''

I would interpret Justice Davis as saying that military courts may only be used in theaters of war when they are strictly necessary. That is, when civilian courts are actually unavailable, and incapable of use. Further, the military may only try criminals so long as the civilian courts are so incapacitated. Anwoolve (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Applicability to "Enemy Combatants" after 9/11?
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)


 * An excellent question, & something I wondered, too. It bears addressing.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The holding in Ex Parte Quirin narrowed Milligan somewhat. See Justice O'Connor's opinion in Hamdi. Milligan also gets significant discussion in the Jose Padilla case, though that never reached the Supreme Court.

Controversy?
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)


 * 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)

Current use against frauds 2015

 * A new editor has added a section as styled above to the main article. I reverted the addition but they have added it again.  The entire section is poorly written and unsourced.  It seems like the editor has some current political point to make, but it is so poorly written that I'm not sure what that point is.  I invite the originator to explain his editors or other editors to revert what appears to be nonsense. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason this is unsourced you apparently deleted it before the submission was entered and the cites done, and poorly written is your point of view, I decided to enter this to prevent two Milligan's on the WIKI, however that's unimportant, the Political part is it has use in law, it has fraud associated to Bar so if you are a Bar, yes it is a Political thing as denoted below:

I thought WIKI Contents allowed submissions and where not private, usually when I get this response it is a BAR attorney, so are you a Bar... The American or International Bar, They are in a 279 Trillion dollar lien and are or should be considered enemy's of the United States, and I am a Private Attorney General and a USMC that has invoked his Military oath to take down the enemies from without and from within or Foreign and domestic depending on which Constitution you abide by and this is what I represent

THAT "Each citizen acts as a 'Private Attorney General who 'takes on the mantle of sovereign' " (Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, 10-11 (E.D. Wis. 1972; Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 E.D. Pa. (1973). "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." (American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442 (1950) and a Sovereign Citizen cannot be punished for sincerely held religious convictions, such as the belief that he is in fact born free and at liberty to act as such. (Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).

This the Case Ex parte Milligan it is a decree and order, and is very important, I did not think I would get hammered for this by someone in charge of a WIKI, if you dont want this let me know I will Post mine it has been written by 300 Pag's and is complex and complete missing some cites that will be applied

I was going to write this WIKI mine is much larger and more detail but having two on the WIKI seems not a good thing, I submitted a part then had to read a cit for a minute and found it removed while I was in starting a cite, I will not get into a fray over something I already have written so I thought for now an Paragraph or two in to yours although not as complete maybe cause is just writing it, however if this is an issue Please advise and I guess there will be two (2) of them on the Internet...

“In regards to criminals of Socialism, Communism, Leninism, Criminal Elitist or Organized criminals or criminals of Usurpation and Treason, the road to decriminalize America is to remove the high crimes ” and become a roadblock in their path with the Common Law Grand Jury and Common Law prosecution in the doctrine of Private Attorney General.

Thanks info@pagsacrossamerica.com John Rowe (USMC) Poking Commies in the eye since 1971 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagsacrossamerica (talk • contribs) 03:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

We have decided to make another and we removed our sumittal into this sesskion of Milligan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagsacrossamerica (talk • contribs) 06:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of what you're saying above but the bottom line was that you removed the material. Another editor, apparently acting in good faith, restored the material. If you, or someone else, really wants to restore this you should make your point here on what this material contributes to the article.  Sentences in the removed material such as:


 * In Ex parte Milligan 1866, currently another legal debate about governmental power and personal liberty has came to light, that in the 1933 Bankruptcy and the moving of Common Law Article III court into Article I Maritime court has been discovered to hold these changes in an apparent Usurpation of Maritime courts, as in a perpetual method as a device in instrument to circumvent the Constitution constructs.


 * simply do not make sense. Your references above to things such as a"279 Trillion dollar lien", "Sovereign Citizen",and "BAR attorney" likewise do not make sense. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links 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)