[sourcery]

No the Author, unlike you, actually understands the Commander in Chief powers

If there's any lack of understanding, you would be the one suffering therefrom. Neither the section of the article on which I was commenting, nor my comment, had anything whatsoever to do with the powers of the Commander in Chief.

For your enlightenment, the issue was whether Article II, section 2. had anything to say about the power of Congress (note: not the President/Commander in Chief) to deny the Federal courts from hearing the claims of enemy combatants at Gitmo. The matter was resolved by the admission on the part of the author of the article that he had misquoted Scalia with respect to which Article of the Constitution dealt with the matter. That was it, end of story.

[Congressman Billybob]

I did not "misquote from Justice Scalia." I copied and pasted directly from the Scalia opinion. There is a typo in the slip opinion, which will certainly be corrected in the printed version of the opinions.

It is Article III, Section 2 (not Article II, Section 2), which gives Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, except for the "original jurisdiction" of the federal courts. This is a power which the Supreme Court has recognized and followed, universally in the past.

This is why the majority in the Hamdan case went through about ten pages of a legal tap dance, to "explain" why the 2005 law from Congress did not oust its jurisdiction in the present case. Otherwise, the Court would have had to reverse all those prior cases. This way, the majority could pretend to be obeying the prior law, whereas Justices Scalia and Thomas pointed out that they were rejecting the prior law.

I should have caught the typo in the opinion, since everyone knows that Article I deals with powers of Congress, Article II deals with powers of the President, and Article III deals with powers of the courts.

John / Billybob