Replies

Why is then the Bush Admin running from the US Supreme Court, the final arbiter of law in the US?

The thread is full of my comments on this matter. What one person calls "running" another might term "using the system."

Secondly, the mumbling about "the war effort" doesn't magically eliminate the Bill of Rights.

I never said that it did. What would be your reaction if the President was able to pack the SCOTUS with justices that consistently ruled with him? That is theoretically possible.

...the Constituion simply doesn't give the President that power even in times of war.

The Constitution basically gives the Chief Executive the powers that the people, through their elected representatives, will grant him. If the Congress and the President were so directed by the people, Federal court judges could be removed and others appointed without delay, not to mention amending the Constitution itself.

Please answer the following. Would you include among the wartime powers of the Presidency as the right to suspend Congress and rule by decree...?

Allow me to sum it up this way. I think a better question would be should any of this be done? My answer is, given the current situation and any that I can envision, no.

However, I do note the use of the word "people" in the question regarding holding without indictment or trial. So, I'll expand a little here. Enemy combatants, IMHO, should be held for the duration of hostilities. US citizens in Padilla's situation ought to be handled on a case by case basis, as they are now.

I understand the actions taken thus far in the Padilla affair. And my previous posts on this thread have addressed my feelings on this subject. I choose, currently, to trust the Administration's actions and judgment in this case for reasons stated in my previous post to you. Civil liberties must always be balanced with national security concerns; and perfection will not be possible.

I'm serious about your answer to these questions.

And I have been serious in my responses, as well as respecting yours.

What would be your reaction if the President was able to pack the SCOTUS with justices that consistently ruled with him? That is theoretically possible.

Actually it isn't. Congress sets the number of justices on the Supreme Court and the Senate must confirm all judicial nominations serving as an important independent check on the executive.

The Constitution basically gives the Chief Executive the powers that the people, through their elected representatives, will grant him.

You might want to read the document and notes and comments made by the Framers on the same. The powers of the Chief Executive are outlined in Article II of the Constitution. His powers are the creation of the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land and he can't revoke any of its provisions even if Congress so decides because Congress doesn't have the power to legislatively overturn the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison). The Constitution can be amended but the President literally has no role in the process.

Enemy combatants, IMHO, should be held for the duration of hostilities. US citizens in Padilla's situation ought to be handled on a case by case basis, as they are now.

Given that the "hostilities" are never-ending, you're effectively holding these people for life. And I'm uncomfortable with giving the President unilateral power to deprive someone of their rights.

choose, currently, to trust the Administration's actions and judgment in this case for reasons stated in my previous post to you.

And what is your basis for this trust? What if the President is lying about the evidence or that the evidence was miscollected? These are also possibilities and good reason why independent oversight is needed.