Assume an executive wanted to use the powers granted to them to harass, intimidate or make life miserable for their enemies (personal and political). What legal and illegal methods do they have?
Does it change much from a mayor vs governor vs president? I assume the president has more power than the governor, who has more than the mayor.
So what can they do?
I was watching a documentary called Street Fight which was about Cory Booker running for the mayor of Newark, NJ in 2002. The current mayor (at the time Sharpe James) and all the dirty Tricks James would use on his enemies. Sending in health inspectors on trumped up charges (from what I recall), using the police to harass businesses that didn’t support him, using the police to assault journalists, etc.
So what could a governor or president do if they didn’t care about the law?
Send the IRS after people?
Compel the FBI to investigate their opponents.
Force the FCC to clamp down on hostile media outlets?
What about all the powers concentrated in the executive branch under the war on terror? What about all the methods the executive branch has of hiding evidence of crimes (states secret privilege, executive privilege, etc), or the powers to imprison and even kill US citizens (Obama started the program of assassinating US citizens in the war on terror, but they were all located overseas as far as I know).
Nixon as president and Sharpe James as mayor were two examples I was thinking of for the executive branch trying to abuse their power in contemporary history.
I’m not sure who a good example of a governor would be.
This quote leaves the reader the impression that Lincoln’s use of this power was pretty much to jail people he didn’t like.
But that’s not exactly what happened. The case that gave the legal principle its name was not a “Lincoln didn’t like” example, for instance:
Maryland had voted to remain in the Union, but wanted to avoid violence by pro-Southern forces, so they also acted to prevent Union troops from using the Maryland railways to move south. The Governor of Maryland ordered that several railroad bridges destroyed to block Union troop movement.
The officer in charge of that mission, Lieutenant John Merryman, was arrested by Union troops and jailed, charged with treason. Through his lawyer, the jailed officer filed a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his arrest and detention was unlawful. The writ was filed with the federal circuit court for Maryland, in which Chief Justice of the United States Roger Taney was sitting by designation.
Taney granted the writ, ordering the military authorities to produce Merryman and explain the lawful basis for his detention. US Marshals attempted to serve the writ but were refused entrance; the Army sent a messenger in reply the Army had suspended the writ of habeas corpus under presidential authority.
Taney wrote an opinion in which he ruled that President cannot suspend habeas corpus himself, much less authorize the Army to do so – as a matter of Constitutional law, he said, only Congress may do so. Lincoln’s response was that Congress was in recess and the the survival of the Union was at stake. He pointed out that in all the states in rebellion, the entire structure of federal law was being torn to shreds. He famously asked Congress:
So far as I am aware, Lincoln didn’t even know Merryman personally.
There was also the point, referred to by Bricker, that the Constitution expressly authorizes the suspension of Habeas corpus in war-time, but is silent on who has the authority to suspend it: Congress or the President?
So it’s not like Lincoln was ignoring the Constitution. It was a genuine point of uncertainty, and his argument was that when Congress was not in session and there was a major insurrection, the President’s war powers as C-in-C authorized him to use the constitutional power to suspend Habeas corpus.
