Ex Parte McCardle...

...is latin for I'm sorry I burned down your frozen banana stand.

Either we've lost something in translation or my latin is rusty.

Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (Wall.) (1868)

Facts
McCardle was alleged to have published articles about the military that were both incendiary and libellous. He was detained by the military and requested a writ of habeus corpus, which would grant him freedom from their custody pending his trial. The writ was granted but the military detained him anyway. He appealed to SCOTUS to declare his detainment unlawful. When the case began SCOTUS had jurisdiction to grant the writ. Just before the ruling Congress passed legislation that repealed that jurisdiction.

Questions
1. Does SCOTUS have jurisdiction?
2. If so, was McCardle's detainment unconstitutional?

Holding
1. No
2. N/A

Reasoning
1. The Constitution provides Congress the power to regulate the judiciary. Remember McCulloch v. Maryland? Congress can do whatever it needs to, as long as it is necessary and proper.
2. N/A

Notes
-That is an impressive victory for Congress. The legislative body is truly the alpha-branch of our government. Even the president is pretty impotent without the Senate and House behind him. That's one of the subplots of Obama's first year that I find intriguing. Eventually he's going to butt heads with the DNC, and it's going to be like my senior prom all over again. Will Congressional Democrats dance with the girl that brought them (Pelosi), or the super-hot sophomore who looks awesome in her dress (Obama).

-I feel very confident putting The Cable Guy in my list of Top 5 underrated movies. I laugh every time I read about a writ of habeus corpus. "I'll put the SYSTEM on trial!"