Posted on 02/13/2008 3:45:25 PM PST by newbie2008
"Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?" Obama's answer: "No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants." Memo to Obama: It is not the Bush administration's position. The Supreme Court held in 2004 -- this is the famous case, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The president has the power to detain American citizens without charges as enemy combatants. Now, I just have to think here -- I don't know what to think. He's either ignorant or he's saying something far more dangerous. If he is saying that he's not bound by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law, liberals would have a stroke if Bush claimed the kind of authority that Obama is claiming in this -- and ignorance.
Liberals are out there going bonkers every day over how stupid Bush is. This Obama interview is just scary. Let's see. Find another one here. He gets it wrong on who ratifies treaties and who consents to them. He says the president doesn't have the authority to abolish treaties. And the president does! Bush abolished the ABM Treaty shortly after taking office because Bush said it's irrelevant. The Soviets are gone. I'm getting rid of this. The liberals went nuts, but they couldn't stop him because the president does have the authority to get rid of treaties. Obama says here that the president does not have the authority to undermine Congress, the Senate here, which ratifies treaties. The Senate doesn't ratify, they consent to them. The president makes treaties, negotiates them, comes up with them. When's the last time you saw Gorbachev meeting with some senator at Reykjavik or anywhere else? Gorbachev met with Reagan, for crying out loud.
“forgot to add American Born.”
Ireland’s loss. I’m sure the fairies and shy folk mourn loosing the gift of your sweet little infant face.
At least you managed to bless some place in the USA> We thank you for that!
If there is one thing I have learned from attending a big law school, it is that big schools are overrated.
What I learned from Constitutional Law is that the document has been twisted and perverted ever since it was written. I also learned, and this is especially apparent with the commerce clause, that what the Constitution says and how the Supreme Court interpret it are two different things.
We shouldn’t let ourselves be overimpressed with qualifications.
Jeez. Am I going to actually have to read Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, or can I rely the modern Separation of Powers doctrine, which divides the power of government among the four branches: Executive, Judiciary, Legislative and Talk Radio?
He'd be John Edwards... just another empty suit.
BTW. Why is Obama "Black?" He mother is pure Caucasian, and his father was not an Aftican-American, or even an American. He had no one in his ancestry who was damaged by slavery, Jim Crow or any of the other stuff we are bound to be sensitive too.
I can't quite figure out the one drop of blood stuff when it comes to someone like Obama.
I need a Photoshop of Obama standing in front of the Cuba/Che flag like the one hanging in his Houston Obama campaign headquarters.
Anybody see anything similar to this yet?
I'm sure he knows what it says, but he is part of the "Democracy" generation who think the Constitution is just some old piece of parchment that is obsolete in the 'modern' world.
He knows what it says... he just does not understand why those "old guys" said it. He does not have a clue why it's important.
That's what is really dangerous, and Obama is far from alone in that ignorance. That's who his audience is.
Oh I LOVE this game, Pick the Clause from the Court Opinion, how about this one:
The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government’s alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi’s detention, through the AUMF.
Oh my goodness, sounds like the Article II authority wasn’t even addressed just as Sandy said.
Take a survey at Harvard Law right now with the question;
True or False. The US Constitution is a 'Living' Document.
I'd bet 85%, including Obama, would say true.
;-/
leave me be, leprechaun............
I’m chatting up celticgirl.
Take a survey at Harvard Law right now with the question;
True or False. The US Constitution is a 'Living' Document.
I'd bet 85%, including Obama, would say true.
Interested in specifics. The most prominent person arrested for disloyal activities, as far as I know, was Clement Vallandigham. He was a former member of Congress campaigning for governor of Ohio at the time of his arrest.
If you know of actual seated Congressmen who were arrested, I'd be interested in who they were.
Interested in specifics. The most prominent person arrested for disloyal activities, as far as I know, was Clement Vallandigham. He was a former member of Congress campaigning for governor of Ohio at the time of his arrest.
If you know of actual seated Congressmen who were arrested, I'd be interested in who they were.
I need a Photoshop of Obama standing in front of the Cuba flag.”
Cool. And I need a Photoshop of you boinking a 10 year old boy.
The charge against the President (and stated by B.O.) was that the President had no Constitutional Authority for the detention. The cited clause from the Supreme Court specifically responds directly to that false charge!
Do you have idea how politically correct life is at Harvard Law?
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.