Posted on 06/29/2006 3:50:16 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
I wrote this up in part in preparation with a live interview with Jerry Agar on the news in Kansas City at 6 pm local time, 7 pm, Eastern. So, I can't stay around for comments, but I'll check in after that broadcast.
John / Billybob
Thanks.
I know nothing about the law, but I can't help but think I have, at least, a clearer mind than at least 5 sitting SC Justices!
"I'm debating a rant tomorrow on why this is actually GREAT news for the coming series of elections."
You beat me. Dern it. :)
It's great news!
I am a preacher, Congressman Billybob, not a lawyer. But if I understand what your post is saying is basically what many of us have suspected. SCOTUS now sees itself above the law and the US Constitution especially the concept of previously decided cases that Stari Decisis (I probably mispelled that!) that was so prominent in the Alito and Roberts hearings.
What do you see as necessary to get a court that decides on a Constructionist view rather than making up new law as they go along as they seem wont to do?
Here's Article II, section 2:
Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Either the "language" to which Scalia refers is written in invisible ink, or else someone has the Article/section wrong.
Ok, now I'm totally confused.
BTW, I'd have gone with the law at the time of the ship's capture and left the Peggy with the privateer.
Agree PD, this decision, once it is understood by the populace, will be quite instructive regarding the need for a heavy Republican majority in Congress, and a constructionist majority on the SCOTUS.
Otherwise (I used to laugh at this kind of talk), we are doomed.
Great legal analysis!
Kudos!
Law, shmaw. The sight of Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, every night on the TV, saying what they will say, arguing what they argue, seeing their ideas and concerns echoed in the press foreign and domestic....it's going to be groovy, man.
Billybob has the article wrong; Scalia refers to the Exceptions Clause of Article III.
I'm with you, Pukin Dog!
"Ok, now I'm totally confused"
The way I read it, and I assume Pukin Dog does too, is the case is thrown to Congress.
I'm ok with that.
Do you guys sense the unease on the part of the DEMS over this ruling...they are quiet ...Bush could make political hay with this one ruling.
Thanks John, but I'll have to reread this pup a few more times until I really don't understand it! j/k.
This is my objection to the idea of war-trials under normal, civilian peace-time law.
A war prisoner is not a prisoner because he has committed a crime, he is prisoner because he is perceived to be a threat by the soldiers who took him, or he is perceived to be a possible source of intelligence.
This "perception" is subjective, based on the expert but narrowly focused opinion of the military. It is not a matter of law. When the military no longer considers him to be a threat, usually at the end of hostilities, he may be released to go home. If they decide he was just at the wrong place at the wrong time, he may be released right away, and many have been.
There are some prisoners, however, who must never walk free under any circumstances. These would normally have a date with the hangman. These usually would be the ideological leaders, who by breathing represent a threat.
These are not legal decisions. There is no crime involved. These are and must be military decisions.
In any case, there would have to be periodic hearings, where the prisoner's status would have to be considered, his threat-level, his value as an intel source, and so forth. This isn't about rules of evidence. This would include reports from interrogators, intel reports, and so forth. This wouldn't be a trial in any recognizable civilian sense of the word. His legal "guilt" or "innocence" is irrelevant, only his perceived threat level.
For those making the trip to the hangman, there might be the extra step of documenting the reasons for the decision to execute him, and some verification that they've got the right man, if possible.
Lawyers ought to have no place in these proceedings. Its not about law in any normal sense.
Well Pelosi reflexively came out pro-terrorist. Or she thought the decision was pro-terr. The matter takes some time to figure out, the judges' words need to be decoded.
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.