[Boot Hill]

"You have two separate parts. One part says that laws made by Congress must be pursuant to the Constitution. Then you have a clear semicolon showing that the pursuant to the Constitution part applies to those Congressional laws but not to what follows." -- southack

Southack confuses what the word "laws" means. It doesn't simply mean "statutes", it encompasses all acts passed by Congress, which includes the treaties. That is why Article VI refers to the Constitution, the laws and the treaties, collectively as "the supreme Law of the Land". The term "law" has a far broader meaning that simply "statute".

Nevertheless, I believe that the President's conduct in regards to the illegal combatants is both prudent as well as substantially constitutional.

--Boot Hill

[inquest]

Southack confuses what the word "laws" means. It doesn't simply mean "statutes", it encompasses all acts passed by Congress, which includes the treaties.

Whether it does or not is really immaterial, since there's no possible way that a statute or a treaty which conflicts with the Constitution could be valid. The Constitution itself would have to explicitly say so.

Nevertheless, I believe that the President's conduct in regards to the illegal combatants is both prudent as well as substantially constitutional.

As long as he doesn't get any funny ideas about defying the courts, the way Lincoln did, then all I can say is that there doesn't appear to be too much of a problem on the surface. But actions like this need to be kept under extremely close scrutiny.