Replies

Habeas did not have to be suspended for the court to rule that its habeas jurisdiction came from an act of congress and thus cannot be removed by any other means than an act of congress under the constitutional clause from which it came.

So according to GOP, the Supreme Court ruled definitively in Bollman that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus, thus establishing the interesting legal theory that the Supreme Court can rule on something that hadn't happened yet. Yet other legal scholars, like the current Chief Justice, say that it has never been established that the President cannot suspend habeas corpus which classifies Chief Justice Marshall's opinion an obiter dictum. So who to believe on this weighty legal matter? GOPcapitalist or Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist? Hmmmm. GOP or Rehnquist, Rehnquist or GOP? That is a hard one, isn't it? </sarcasm>

Yet other legal scholars, like the current Chief Justice, say that it has never been established that the President cannot suspend habeas corpus

Would that be the same Chief Justice Rehnquist who signed onto a ruling this summer that said this?

"We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens. Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake. Likewise, we have made clear that, unless Congress acts to suspend it, the Great Writ of habeas corpus allows the Judicial Branch to play a necessary role in maintaining this delicate balance of governance, serving as an important judicial check on the Executive’s discretion in the realm of detentions. Thus, while we do not question that our due process assessment must pay keen attention to the particular burdens faced by the Executive in the context of military action, it would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge. Absent suspension of the writ by Congress, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant is entitled to this process."

You are correct about Rehnquist having a view on the matter, only his real view is absolutely nothing like the one you assign to him.

(In GOPc-speak) But ... but ... (sputter) ... but ... what about Hamdi? (Drool) Di'n't Rehnquist side with the ... (sputter) ... majority about habeas?

"Though no single opinion of the Court commanded a majority, eight of the nine justices of the Court agreed that the Executive Branch does not have the power to indefinitely hold a U.S. citizen without basic due process protections through judicial review."

[Non-Seq] GOP or Rehnquist, Rehnquist or GOP? That is a hard one, isn't it?

It is indeed difficult when one considers the opposing opinion of the foremost Blue State Brigade legal scholar who holds that it is not about habeas corpus at all -- it is about treason.

capitan_refugio #237 8/29/2004 to GOPcap argued that "Bollman was not about habeas corpus...."

capitan_refugio #1900 12/01/2004 "Bollman was about what treason."