Posted on 06/28/2004 6:21:38 PM PDT by jwalsh07
As we have repeatedly said: “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree....
Rasul v Bush. (PDF file)
(Excerpt) Read more at a257.g.akamaitech.net ...
I think you're laughable. You write that "the writ can not be suspended" but the writ indeed can be suspended as provided for in the constitution and then you claim that you were right the whole time. Very funny.
Dude, the POTUS can NOT suspend habeas, that is a power granted only to Congress.
Thank you for this wonderful concession. Now just exactly where did the Congress suspend habeas corpus?
I have done a search on "the writ can not be suspended" and have been unable to find it in any of my posts, however it is prominent in your posts. That is a classic example of putting words in someone else's mouth.
Maybe you should consider your namesake....
Quotations from The Trail Where They Cried
The West, a documentary by Ken Burns and Stephen Ives
"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."
President Andrew Jackson re: Worcester v. Georgia
"I saw the helpless Cherokees arrested and dragged from their homes, and driven at the bayonet point into the stockades. And in the chill of a drizzling rain on an October morning I saw them loaded like cattle or sheep into six hundred and forty-five wagons and started toward the west....On the morning of November the 17th we encountered a terrific sleet and snow storm with freezing temperatures and from that day until we reached the end of the fateful journey on March the 26th 1839, the sufferings of the Cherokees were awful. The trail of the exiles was a trail of death. They had to sleep in the wagons and on the ground without fire. And I have known as many as twenty-two of them to die in one night of pneumonia due to ill treatment, cold and exposure..."
Private John G. Burnett
Captain Abraham McClellan's Company,
2nd Regiment, 2nd Brigade, Mounted Infantry
Cherokee Indian Removal 1838-39
First of all I didn't concede anything I simply corrected your erroneous claim that a POTUS could suspend the writ.
Secondly, why would Congress have to suspend the writ for POW's? Did they suspend the writ in WW2? Korea? WW1? Vietnam? Gulf War 1?
You do understand that constitutionally speaking there is a difference between enemy combatants captured on foreign soil and common criminals in American territory, do you not?
I still want to know, can Castro, as the sovereign authority of Gitmo, issue a decree freeing the prisoners we hold there or can he not? If not then how is he in any sense sovereign? Who settles this issue? The Cuban supreme court, the US supreme court, or the world court. Or do we have a state of lawlessness?
Sure they could, but they would probably get the same answer Andy Jackson gave the Supreme court.
You can sure remind me, I could use a little good news. Why waste bandwidth on that ACLU Shill, AndyJackson.
I believe Lincoln did, exactly that.
Once again you have to get out of the very bad habit of putting words in my mouth. Nowhere have I claimed that the president can suspend habeas corpus. I have argued strongly against that position
Secondly, why would Congress have to suspend the writ for POW's? Did they suspend the writ in WW2? Korea? WW1? Vietnam? Gulf War You do understand that constitutionally speaking there is a difference between enemy combatants captured on foreign soil and common criminals in American territory, do you not?
What the SC has argued is merely that the writ of habeas corpus requires only that there be a proces, it could be a military tribunal, which establishes a rebutable case that someone is properly classified and detained. You are really making this a lot harder than it is. It is merely a safeguard that an innocent US citizen was not hauled off to Gitmo and detained as a prisoner of war for "the [very long] duration" with no right of rebutal. As stated in the decision and in the WSJ article the district court hearing could be as simple as a military tribunal was held, the evidence was taken under oath, the detainee was captured on the battlefield carrying arms by US soldiers, and is therefore classified as an enemy combatant of war. End of story. Unfortunately, said hearing, tribunal has never been held -in this case -but such tribunals were held in Germany as established in the Eisnetrager case.
First of all I didn't concede anything I simply corrected your erroneous claim that a POTUS could suspend the writ. Secondly, why would Congress have to suspend the writ for POW's? Did they suspend the writ in WW2? Korea? WW1? Vietnam? Gulf War 1? You do understand that constitutionally speaking there is a difference between enemy combatants captured on foreign soil and common criminals in American territory, do you not?
Yes and so does the SC decision, which merely states that there has to be some due process applied. Again the military can do it. But a little more is required than a corporal with a Hitler complex.
So, because I would uphold habeas corpus I am a shill for the ACLU?
The Cuban government is the sovereign authority at Gitmo. The Cuban government gave up some of its rights at Gitmo when it signed the treaty of 1934. If the treaty of 1934 forbids the Cuban government from freeing prisoners, then the Cuban government can't free the prisoners.
The U.S. Constitution limits the power of the federal government to its people. The U.S Constitution limits the power of the federal government in its jurisdiction.
The U.S. Constitution has no controlling authority in how the U.S. government treats non-citizens outside its jurisdiction.
First, I think in the case of the North, the rebellion and invasion parts certainly kicked in. Second, I am not sure that a lot of constitutional scholars, even conservative one's or perhaps especially conservative ones are exactly comfortable with Lincoln's decision. After all, what stoppled Clinton after the Waco rebellion or the OKC bombing from suspending habeas corpus?
Ah the "no controlling legal authority" argument. I just hate it when so-called conservatives resort to it. It is a liberal's argument. Hell, it was Al Gore's argument.
I should summarize my above post by saying that the U.S. government can do whatever it wants to non-citizens at Gitmo relative to the controlling authority of the U.S. Constitution.
Nonsequitur. It doesn't logically following that because Al Gore uses the phrase at an inappropriate time, that the phrase in and of it self is inappropriate at all times.
Real liberal to think so, though.
scotus bumpity bump bump...
As the SC stated, the constitutional issue is not actually the non-citizens outside the jurisdiction part. It is the actions of constitutional officers of the U.S. acting under authority granted under the laws of the United States as provide for by the U.S. constitution part, and such officials most definitely have powers and authorities circumscribed by the U.S. Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.