Remember the Boumediene decisions? The one where the Supreme Court ignored Congress' orders to strip them of jurisdiction? One of the major issues in this case was the fact that the Court trampled all over Congress' ability to determine the limits of judicial oversight. And virtually no mainstream 'news' organ picked up on that fact- nstead they universally trumpeted how the eeevil Bush Adminstraion had been forced to observe the law'. The LA Times, for example, wrote on their front page,
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected for the third time President Bush's policy of holding foreign prisoners under exclusive control of the military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ruling that the men have a right to seek their freedom before a federal judge. The justices said the Constitution from the beginning enshrined the "privilege of habeas corpus" -- or the right to go before a judge -- as one of the safeguards of liberty. And that right extends even to foreigners captured in the war on terrorism, the high court said, particularly when they have been held for as long as six years without charges.
. The article admits that Congress stripped jurisdiction from the judiciary in 2006, writing,
After that setback, the administration went to Congress, still under GOP control, and won a law authorizing trials through military commissions. The law also stripped all the foreign "enemy combatants" of their right to go to court via a writ of habeas corpus.
but clearly agreeing with the idea that foreign, unlawful combatants have more rights than lawful prisoners-of-war.
However, the Los Angeles Times today provided a simple clarifier- in the case of the border fence authorized by Congress three years ago. The pertinent language is found approximately halfway through the article, where the Times writes,
Three years ago, Congress gave Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff an unusual power to "waive all legal requirements" that could stand in the way of building the fence.
These requirements included the nation's environmental protection laws. The same congressional action took away the authority of judges to review Chertoff's decisions.
"The same congressional action took away the authority of judges to review Chertoff's decisions." Really? So then is the LA Times admitting Congress DOES have the Constitutional authority to limit judicial influence. Why then did the Court ignore Congress' instructions in Boumediene, and why didn't the LA Times excoriate the judges for this blatant overstepping of their authority? If Congress does indeed have the Constitutional authority (as admitted in this LA Times story), then how can the Court ignore that instruction? Isn't that breaking the Constitution themselves?
As a refresher, here is what the United States Constitution itself has to say about the jurisdiction of the judiciary:
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
This seems pretty explicit- the Court's jurisdiction can be restricted by Congress. And the LA Times has tacitly admitted precisely this in their story on the Court's refusal of the environmental challenges to the border fence. Yet the Press, again in the person of th LA Times, is seemingly agreeable with the Court choosing when it wishes to actually be bound by the Constitution.
I am amazed at how the the LA Times can manage to completely miss the fact that the Court has once again rolled all over the Constitution and infringed on the prerogatives of another branch. I guess that in the realm of the media and the liberals on the Court, all if fair if it embarrasses the Bush Administration, never mind the disastrous results for the nation as a whole and one more judicial over-reach that we will be paying for for years to come. Cross-posted on StoneHeads.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
From my limited
June 24, 2008 - 14:30 ET by Dan The Man 2From my limited understanding of teh constitution and laws the 3 branches each have thier own unique powers. One branch cannot intervene in the affairs of the others unless 2 branches gang up on the other. The President should declare his powers to prosecute the WOT as one of his defined powers now. SCOTUS has teh power to pass judgement on laws of being constitutional, but if 2 other branches say it is constitutional then it is.
SCOTUS is not the last word. Convention has held SCOTUS is valid when the laws are vague and need clarification. In my opinion the constitution says the President is resposible for prosecuting a war, not SCOTUS.
The thing to do would be to ammend teh constitution, always a risky process, and that would settle it once and for all. Scotus is not supposed to be able to strike down such measures.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Constitution: Habeas Corpus may be suspended for public safety
June 24, 2008 - 19:21 ET by nkviking75I found this interesting sentence in Article I, Sec. 9 of the Constitution:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may
require it.
It seems to me that the Administration could credibly argue that the public Safety requires suspending Habeas Corpus for illegal combatants and terrorists, especially when a public trial would expose information that would aid the enemy.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
@Mr. Newcomb:
June 24, 2008 - 16:05 ET by j. frank wilsonYou will not find in the US Constitution the Supreme Court's role in determining if a law passed by Congress is Constitutional. Have you really never heard of "Marbury vs. Madison?" The US Congress cannot pass a valid law prohibiting judicial review of that law. The time for that was 1804 or so - not the 21st Century. Such an attempt is a silly assault on the separation of powers, and doomed to the failure it deserves.
As a sidenote, unless the LA Times publishes editorials on its front page, it is not correct to post that "the LA Times said..." anything. A reporter, correspondent, free-lance or other person wrote a story that was published on the front page of the LA Times. But the voice of the Times - as with any other responsible newspaper - may only be found on its Editorial Page. This is the old Ann Falter footnote trick - she will write "according to The New York Times..." and it will turn out to be an op-ed opinion piece published in the Times.
In re your "sidenote"
June 24, 2008 - 17:26 ET by Indiana JoeSo it is your contention that a news outlet is not responsible for the inferences that can be drawn from it's reportage? Only the "facts" get in, unless it's an editorial presenting the paper's "voice?" And extrapolating from those "facts" is strictly verboten?
Have you really never heard of "spin?"
Now then:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
-U.S. Constitution,Article III, Sec. 2
Following is the "holding" of Marbury vs. Madison, per wikipedia:
"Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Federal courts to interpret what the Constitution permits."
Now, while Marbury vs. Madison may grant SCOTUS the power to interpret the constitutionality of laws (because they say they can), I see nothing in it that repeals the Constitutional power of Congress to create "Exceptions" and "Regulations."
Is it your contention that Congress can't make ANY of these exceptions or regulations? Sounds like that would be the SCOTUS usurping the power of the legislature. The SCOTUS is as bound by the plain language of the Constitution as surely as the legislative and executive branches are.
Using a SCOTUS ruling to justify a SCOTUS power-grab is the "assault on the separation of powers." And I don't think it's silly at all.
@Indiana Joe:
June 24, 2008 - 17:51 ET by j. frank wilsonMy contention is precisely what I stated - it is not correct to write "according to the LA Times..." or "The LA Times said..." unless you are quoting an editorial. Otherwise the correct construction is "according to an article in the LA Times..." or "as an article in the LA Times stated..."
If you wish to get Marbury vs. Madison overturned, good luck with that. If the US Congress could pass a law removing judicial review, why wouldn't they do that with every law? Obviously when it's passed by the Congress a majority of Senators and Representatives support it.
The fact is the Congress can no more suspend the Constitution than the President can. It is up to the Supreme Court to decide if a law is Constitutional or not. Chief Justice John Marshall made that clear in 1804, and no matter how many right wing nutz in 2008 don't like it, you're too late! You couldn't get Chief Justice John Roberts to go along with you on this one.
Oh, okay, so you were just
June 24, 2008 - 18:24 ET by Indiana JoeOh, okay, so you were just nit-picking grammar.
So why not apply that same critical construction to the actual words of the Constitution?
Oh, I forgot. For left-wing nutz, a SCOTUS decision is never wrong. Unless it's about the Boy Scouts right of free association. Or Gore vs. Bush. Apparently you believe the SCOTUS is the only one who can "suspend the Constitution." Just screw all that "Article III" mumbo-jumbo, right? It's completely meaningless.
My mistake. I thought you actually wanted to discuss the Constitution, not just get off insulting cheap shots. What was I thinking?
@Indiana Joe:
June 24, 2008 - 19:05 ET by j. frank wilsonIt's not "nit picking" grammar. Or grampa. It's about being accurate and correct and presenting information in a responsible manner.
Of course the Supreme Court can not suspend the Constitution. And they do get things wrong - Dred Scott, for one. For our system to work, however, settled law must be settled law - and Marbury vs. Madison has been on the books for a while now. And a great many decisions flow from it.
Go back a couple of hundred years - when has the US Congress told the federal judiciary they may not rule on a particular matter? With all the great minds that have served in the House and the Senate for over two centuries, this most recent crop is the smartest of all time? They thought of something that had never been tried before, although it was just sitting there in the Constitution all this time just waiting to be used?
You use "settled law must
June 25, 2008 - 00:43 ET by Dan The Man 2You use "settled law must be settled law" which is a typical ploy by leftists to say SCOTUS decision is inviolate. There is no such thing as settled law as laws change and SCOTUS decisions change. The thing you want to change is the constitution which says SCOTUS is wrong on habius corpus for terrorists. Habius corpus is also only for citizens and does not apply. In fact international law teh GC says it does not apply by allowing teh terrorists to be help incommunicado and the country they offend may dispose of them at their leisure.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
You are quite correct to
June 24, 2008 - 19:58 ET by Jack BauerYou are quite correct to quote it as what "The LA Times says" because said newspaper, and sources such as the AP, have corruptly blurred the line between opinion and news.
So called front-page "news" is now infected with the reporters opinion through and through.
Frankie
June 25, 2008 - 01:01 ET by HumblepieYour foolhardy attempt at humor is boring.
"As a sidenote, unless the LA Times publishes editorials on its front page, it is not correct to post that "the LA Times said..."
Twas not on the editorial pages. Please check your sources first. Written by: "By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer June 24, 2008"
The Court and Constitutional Interpretation
The Constitution limits the Court to
dealing with "Cases" and "Controversies." John Jay, the first Chief
Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court's history by
declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional
implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not
give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to
deciding specific cases.
When
the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue that judgment is
virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used
procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court.
However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action
can be taken.
Now we know the federal government directs the way a war is fought, through input from the military chief of staff. On top of that you have the Geneva Convention and the Laws of Armed Conflict. Now tell me where it is written that enemy combatants captured on the field of battle are entitled to the luxury of the US Courts? Also, please show me where in the Constitution it mentions the rights of captured enemy personnel? This is a mute point and the Supreme Court overstepped its boundary's.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
@Humblepie:
June 25, 2008 - 10:21 ET by j. frank wilsonAlthough you apparently did not intend to do so, you agree with my statement regarding quoting the LA Times. Go back and read what I wrote - it is clear.
Regarding your comment :...tell me where it is written that enemy combatants captured on the field of battle are entitled to the luxury of the US Courts? Also, please show me where in the Constitution it mentions the rights of captured enemy personnel?"
When was it proven that the prisoners in question were either "captured on the field of battle" or are "enemy personnel?" You beg the question - you avoid the key issue in this whole matter - by jumping to the conclusion that the people being held are guilty. The US Supreme Court ruled they are entitled to some form of due process - the Bush Administration didn't really leave them much room to maneuver - and you're not happy with the result. Take it up with the Administration that persists in pathetic attempts to rewrite the existing laws that function just fine.
As to your John Jay history lesson, to what point do you share your knowledge?
When writers are employed by said newspaper...
June 25, 2008 - 12:03 ET by HumblepieWhen writers are employed by said newspaper they may write editorials but they should not reflect the views of the paper/company in other articles. The writer of the piece has the title of Los Angeles Times Staff Writer. This was not written by Joe Doe, the average citizen. He is using his position to praise them one minute and lambaste them the next. LA Times continues to write articles with smiley faces for liberal views but does an 180 on others. Change a word here or there and the meaning is also changed.
As for detainees at Gitmo:
I'm sorry, but I do believe the individuals held in Gitmo, were captured by US Forces while engaging said forces. There are a small portion that were captured by house to house search. They have no rights under the host country while being held and can be held until hostilities have ceased. Show any proof you have on people at Gitmo who were not captured either in Iraq or Afghanistan. The US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction at all in this matter. Case study for you might be POW's and such from former wars. Both the Geneva Convention and Laws of Armed Conflict were introduced/updated during and after conflict. And yes, the US is a signatory of both document. both.
http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/yaleu?domains=yale.edu&sitesearch=yale.edu%2Flawweb%2Favalon%2Flawofwar&q=prisoners+rights
The only exceptions are a few noted well placed terrorist that were captured by foreign services with the help of the US. These individuals are terrorist and have no allegiance to any particular country. International Law's of Armed Conflict actually places said individuals in the same category as spies and saboteur's.
Your posts have no merit and lacks arguments. You can believe all you want that they have basic rights under the Constitution, but, the two documents listed above proves you wrong. Anyone who served in the military is aware of both and receive continued training so they know their's/others rights.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
@Humblepie: "Battlefield Capture Myth"
June 25, 2008 - 12:36 ET by j. frank wilsonAs requested:
"A comparison of the two data sets reveals that exactly one detainee was alleged to have been captured on a battlefield by United States forces. That lone detainee is Omar Khadr (ISN5 66), a Canadian citizen who was captured when he was fifteen (15) years old.6 In his sixth year of detention, Khadr is one of the first Guantánamo detainees to face a military tribunal."
http://law.shu.edu/news/meaning_of_battlefield_final_121007.pdf
There are a number of fully-documented studies available on this site. They all use the DoD data with all its limitations (clearly stated, as well).
You may believe what you want. The facts, however, are the facts.
Who cares Frank? If they
June 25, 2008 - 12:46 ET by bassndudeWho cares Frank? If they are captured anywhere in Iraq or in Afgan regions, they were captured on the battlefield. And I think most folks in NYC would agree to include NYC in that catagory. I do belive that the battlefield encompasses the entire theater of operations. That would include a number of other countries at this time.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
@bassndude:
June 25, 2008 - 13:22 ET by j. frank wilson"Who cares?" Humblepie for one, because he (she? we don't know) commented about "battlefield capture." Take up your arguement with him (her?).
In the meantime, here are some "Battlefield Capture Myth" figures to chew on:
"...only four percent (4%) of Guantánamo Bay detainees for whom a CSRT had been convened were ever alleged by the United States Government to have been on a battlefield to which they might return.3 The report further revealed that only twenty-four (24) detainees—just five percent (5%)—were alleged to have been captured by United States forces.4"
(op. cit. - footnotes in the orignal)
1) They dont have to be
June 25, 2008 - 13:32 ET by bassndude1) They dont have to be able to, nor inclined to, return to the battlefield. That is really a bogus argument for someone caught on a battlefield.
2)There are also Canadian, British, Turks and a number of other forces on the battlefield. So weather they were caught by US forces or not, they were still caught by allied forces. It is not a requirement to be caught by US forces on the battlefield, only that they are caught on the battlefield.
So your little excerpt there is not an argument. It is just a footnote on stats of those heald. I dont care who caught them, and I dont care if they are missing arms or legs or both. It matters not if they intended to return to the battlefield or not. The fact is, they were there at the time.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
@bassndude:
June 25, 2008 - 14:01 ET by j. frank wilsonWhat about the other 96%?
Well, looking at your
June 25, 2008 - 14:09 ET by bassndudeWell, looking at your excert, seems to me that the other 96% were caught by some of the other allied forces on the battlefield at some point. And they thought they belonged in Gitmo, so they handed them over to the US.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
@bassndude:
June 25, 2008 - 14:55 ET by j. frank wilsonNo - it says 96% of those held were not captured on the battlefield - by anyone. And 95% of those held were not captured by the US military. Indeed, just one poor soul was captured on the battlefield by the US Military - the cited teenager.
Please try again. Perhaps by reading the referenced reports - you certainly won't get that news on Faux Noise.
PS: 86% weren't "handed over" - they were sold.
Frank
June 25, 2008 - 15:56 ET by bassndudeNo...that is not what it sayes. It sayes they were not captured by US forces on the battlefield. Perhaps you should check your sources source. law.shu.edu is only trying to define battlefield in that report trying to defend 2 of the prisnors at Gitmo. Do you think they are a disinterested party?? No, I dont think so. The excert you have there is only a partial excert of a much larger report. This is only an atempt to define the battlefield as the place where shots were fired at the moment, and they play on the part that "US Forces" were not the ones to capture said detainees. Not that 96% were not captured on the battlefield, as defined by the theater of operations. 'Ur gonna hav a do better 'n 'dat.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
@bassndude:
June 25, 2008 - 16:27 ET by j. frank wilsonThe "sources' source" is the Department of Defense. I agree with you, hardly a disinterested party. But the only source we have.
Please read the report. Vast majority of prisoners were not captured "on the battlefield" or captured by US Military (96% and 95%, respectively) - despite many claims (lies) to the contrary by members of the Bush Administration.
The facts, numbers, sources are all there. I can certainly see why you wouldn't like them - but there they are.
Why couldn't our current Administration have been honest enough to say "We paid a bounty for several hundred people and we really haven't yet made a good faith effort to find out who they are, what they did, or what they know. But we're just going to keep them anyway."
The worst of the worst may be found somewhat north of Cuba...
Just getting back from work
June 26, 2008 - 01:14 ET by HumblepieActually your numbers are a tad backwards. Most documentation and website remark that most were captured/rounded up during the opening days of the war. Other continue to be rounded up almost on a daily basis. Most were captured in either Afghanistan or Pakistan. Others include the 6 from Bosnia, who were arrested after their acquittal in said country, others from mainly Malawi. Only a few were, according to the detainees, were sold to allied forces. As for the term battlefield, I apologized for using that term. The point I was making is that they were captured by US/Allied forces, either in direct conflict or through other means, their rights are defined under the International Laws of Armed Conflict. This document was initially written in circa 1920 but continues to be updated. It describes combatants and non-combatants, who is subject to its laws, also the rights and responsibilities of the detaining country/forces. Interesting to note that 4 out of 5 SC Justices voted against.
As for the lack of information provided about each individual. Some of my friends who served at Gitmo will cite the number of times the prisoners have given either a new name or revised their name. Unless the actual number is released by the DoD, any listing of detainees should be scrutinized.
Side Note: Some American fighting men spent 8 years in Vietnam's POW camps, under harsher conditions. Six at Gitmo is a cake walk.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
@Humblepie:
June 26, 2008 - 10:33 ET by j. frank wilsonYou comment that "my" numbers (they are not mine) are backwards but you cite no sources. If you don't trust the Department of Defense data I would understand - but to pass off "Most documentation and website remark..." is hardly sourcing numbers.
The Seton Hall studies are well documented. If these are not the best data available, kindly show us new figures and where they came from.
First you say the detainees can't be trusted to give factual information they you say most of them state they were not sold. Which is it? BTW - DoD data show 86% were purchased by the US Military. Doubtless we got quite a bargain...
@Frank
June 26, 2008 - 13:01 ET by HumblepieThree website/documents for your review. This first two are DoD while the third is from a Islamic Group in England. While both DoD list only give names, prisoner #'s, date/place of birth and citizenship. The third from "Cageprisoners.com not only gives some of this information, but also:
"The vast majority of the detainees held in the US naval base in
Guantanamo Bay were arrested in Afghanistan or Pakistan, between
November 2001 and January 2002, after the US invasion of Afghanistan in
the wake of the September 11th attacks. In addition to the fact that
many of these were arrested far from the scene of any fighting, a
significant number were also the victims of extra-judicial kidnappings
and extraditions from countries distant from the Afghan-Pak region,
such as Gambia, Bosnia, Malawi and Zambia."
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2006/d20060515%20List.pdf
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2006/d20060515%20List.pdf
http://www.cageprisoners.com/page.php?id=10
I never said "most of them state they were not sold." My comment was "Only a few were, according to the detainees, sold to allied forces." Please check out Cageprisoner's list with attached comments.
"BTW - DoD data show 86% were purchased by the US Military. Doubtless we got quite a bargain..." Please state source. DoD data does not show that as sites listed above prove. Even your Seton Hall study can not give number. They state the US promised large sums of money...etc. It does state by it's pie chart that about 97% were found/detained in either Pakistan or Afghanistan with 66% probably provided by Pakistan Authorities or in Pakistan itself. That fall into line with Cageprisoners assessment.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
@Humblepie:
June 26, 2008 - 13:55 ET by j. frank wilsonAs requested:
Although the vast majority of detainees were neither captured by United States forces nor captured by anyone else on any battlefield—and eighty-six percent (86%) may have been sold to the United States for a bounty7—the Department of Defense and other highest level Government officials have continuously represented the detainees as having been captured on the battlefield and having returned to the battlefield upon release.8 [emphasis added]
1 The purpose of the CSRT unclassified summary of the evidence, or the “R-1,” is to summarize the Government’s bases for detention of the individual for whom the CSRT is convened. The Government conducted 558 CSRTs, and eventually made 516 CSRT unclassified summaries public. See our first Report on Guantánamo Detainees (2006), available at http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf. 7 Supra note 1. 8 “These are people picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan….They were picked up on the battlefield, fighting American forces, trying to kill American forces.” President Bush, June 20, 2005. Retrieved November 4, 2007 from http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200602u/nj_taylor_2006-02-07.“The people that are there are people we picked up on the battlefield, primarily in Afghanistan. They're terrorists. They're bomb makers. They're facilitators of terror. They're members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban....We've let go those that we've deemed not to be a continuing threat. But the 520-some that are there now are serious, deadly threats to the United States." Vice President Cheney, June 23, 2005. Retrieved November 4, 2007 from http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200602u/nj_taylor_2006-02-07.“If we do close down Guantánamo, what becomes of the hundreds of dangerous people who were picked up on battlefields in Afghanistan, who were picked up because of their associations with [al-Qa`ida].” Condoleezza Rice, quoted by John D. Banusiewicz for American Forces Press Service, May 21, 2006. Retrieved November 3, 2007 from http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15706."These detainees are dangerous enemy combatants....They were picked up on the battlefield, fighting American forces, trying to kill American forces." White House press secretary Scott McClellan, June 21, 2005. Retrieved November 4, 2007 from http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200602u/nj_taylor_2006-02-07.“I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I’m not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial.” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, just prior to oral arguments in Hamdan. As quoted by Newsweek, March 8, 2006. http://law.shu.edu/news/empty_battlefield_final.pdf
Please define the battlefield?
June 25, 2008 - 13:13 ET by HumblepieStated objective for the War on Terrorism is any place they are. Again, these people have no allegiances to a particular country, only to their cause. How many countries harbor terrorist? How many countries actively participate in their capture. This is a worldwide problem that we face. If you are a terrorist, enemy combatant, etc., you have the right to an 8x10 room for as long as it take to root them all out. They fall under the Rules of Armed Conflict. Please read it sometime.
Now, tell me again how these individuals have any rights under the Constitution? Please refer to with article(s). This is my second request for this information.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
@Humblepie:
June 25, 2008 - 13:28 ET by j. frank wilsonSo you parrot the "worst of the worst - they were captured on the field of battle" line because it makes these folks sound so terrible. Then you back off to "well, we rounded up a few people and bought the rest - when and were we felt like it."
Like so many others at NB your contention is circular - we hold the Gitmo prisoners because they are so bad; we know they are so bad because we hold them.
It isn't up to me to define anyone's rights under the US Constitution. Read the US Supreme Court decision - the prevailing justices did a fine job of explaining how they came to their decision.
"It isn't up to me to
June 25, 2008 - 15:16 ET by contrary"It isn't up to me to define anyone's rights under the US Constitution."
I'm curious who that responsibility falls to.
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
@contrary:
June 25, 2008 - 15:38 ET by j. frank wilsonAfter awhile the oh-so-clever NB "gotcha!" guestions just get old.
The US Supreme Court descision was well written and quite clear. The Bush Administration made a complete mess of the entire affair, attempted to re-write the law and got no where with it, went to the US Supreme Court three times and after slapping them back twice the Justices said "enough is enough."
Kinda like Johnny Bench throwing out all those Yankee baserunners in the '76 World Serious. As Bob Ueker (sp?) said, "There's going to keep trying until they get it right."
Except that in this case these poor souls are rotting in prison, the responsibility of the United States of America. Yes, the entire country. The Justices read the Constitution and the case law, realized the habeus can only be suspended under extraordinary circumstances, saw no other avenue(s) and made their decision.
Rant not-withstanding, you
June 25, 2008 - 15:45 ET by contraryRant not-withstanding, you didn't answer the question.
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweigt, bigot
@contrary:
June 25, 2008 - 16:29 ET by j. frank wilsonNo thanx.
Interesting
June 24, 2008 - 19:22 ET by contraryInteresting read...
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3574172.html
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
Also...When the Supreme
June 24, 2008 - 19:43 ET by contraryAlso...
When the Supreme Court invalidates federal laws, Congress may redraft them, eliminating the provisions found objectionable by the Court. Or it may initiate an amendment to the Constitution, establishing its right to enact legislation of the type desired. In this way a Supreme Court decision, holding that a tax on income derived from property had to be apportioned among the states, led to the enactment of the 16th Amendment (1913), giving Congress the power to levy "taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States. . . ." It is also within the power of Congress to initiate a constitutional amendment depriving the Supreme Court of its power to invalidate legislation. Although an amendment of this type has been suggested as a means of increasing the power of Congress, none has been adopted.
Note, this does not mean the Supreme Court, when invalidating a Federal Law, creates new "rights." Instead, it leaves such matters to Congress, who may rewrite the Law to satisfy Constitutional requirements. To remove Congress' duty in this process strains the democratic principles this country was built, as We the People determine, not unelectable judges, how we are governed.
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot