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.
Wasn’t Adam Clayton Powell arrested?
And of course Senator Widestance was arrested.
Let the Dimocrats nominate him first!
Who needs the Constitution when you can speak of inspiration?
Uh, wait a minute, what was that Founder’s fear about demagoguery? Oh well move on.
Islamic law, I presume!
OBAMA, RADICAL MENTOR SAUL ALINSKY, AND MARXIST LIBERATION THEOLOGY
There is quite a connection between Obama and the Industrial Areas Foundation, a radical organization located in Chicago (Obama’s turf) and the ideological heir of Saul Alinsky, a notorious revolutionary who dedicated his mail work (Rules for Rebels) to Satan.
Obama’s mentor Saul Alinsky began his book Rules for Radicals:
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
All you need to do is enter in Google first, “Obama”, then “IAF”. Check around and you will be surprised.
The radical Marxist, Saul Alinsky, was the mentor of both, Hillary and Obama and his book, “Rules for Radicals” is the bible for radicals as the “Mein Kampf ‘ was for the Nazis. As a matter of fact, Hillary based her graduation thesis on Alinsky’s works.
Pope Benedict XVI, who as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith , spearheaded the fight of Pope John Paul II against the infiltration of the Church by the Marxists through the so called “Liberation Theology”, writing in “ Truth and Tolerance” of the fall of the Soviet Union stated clearly his stand on the “Liberation Theology”:
“...where the Marxist ideology of liberation had been consistently applied, a total lack of freedom had developed, whose horrors were now laid bare before the eyes of the entire world. Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.”
For Alinsky and his disciples:
“ There are no rules for revolution any more than there are rules for love or rules for happiness, but there are rules for radicals who want to change their world”
“ Whatever Obama’s concrete plans are, they ought to aligned with his political mentor, Saul Alinsky, and his spiritual mentor and liberation theology specialist, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.”
“ All this is in addition to Obama’s long-term membership in an exclusively African-American church, affiliated with the United Church of Christ, founded on the teachings of Black Liberation Theology, a Marxist ideology that incorporates racist concepts.”
“ Based on his record, we could expect most of the following:
-More funding of Planned Parenthood.
-Socialist medicine including abortion, pills for teens, etc., for free!
-More explicit sex ed in high school. Eventually in junior high!!
-ACLU-type removal of evidences of America’s Christian heritage.
-Same sex marriage. Pressure put on more companies and churches either to stop opposing homosexuality, or to actively support or endorse it.
-Socialist equalizing of people’s incomes—or at least lots of little attempts to move things even more in that direction.
-Screws turned on home schools, Christian schools and private schools in general.
-Jihadists around the world will see his election as a green light to pick up their tempo. (This may be the least likely outcome of any on the list. But still fairly likely.)”
“ If that sounds extreme, consider that not only did Obama and Clinton oppose Alito—pretty much all the Dems did—but he also opposed Roberts and filibustered Alito. So even a mild judicial conservative, which is what Alito and Roberts are, is intolerable to Obama. He only wants judges who will continue the court-led deconstruction of American society!”
There is need for someone with the right skills and time to work on uncovering what is really behind Obama who, for all we know, might become President of the United States. At least our people have the right to know who they are voting for.
Note: Some quotes are from “Obama’s Politics of Collective Redemption” by: Kyle-Anne Shiver
You evidently operate under the misapprehension that an education makes you smart.
An education merely enhances one ability to learn and teaches where to look to learn even more.
Life teaches smarts.
Constitutional law is a specialized field. Most lawyers know little about it. I would venture that Rush has some of the best consultants in the field - far better than Obama's. Example - Ted Olson.
Well, I’ll be sending ye wee thanks for that lovely Irish compliment!
The issue as framed by the Rush excerpt “was 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 Court held that the Congress, through the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) had authorized the President to detain suspected enemy combatants (even US citizens) and therefore it was unnecessary to address whether the CONSTITUTION itself granted absolute (plenary) authority for the President to do so.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld did not settle the issue because the detainment was upheld on other grounds.
While the President had authority under AUMF, it was not determined whether he had CONSTITUTIONAL Authority for the same action.
Obama’s opinion has not been court tested, but that doesn’t mean he lacks knowledge about the Constitution. To the contrary, his pointed response demonstrated salient knowledge of both the Constitution and current case law on the issue.
Huh??
Having only read enough of the case to be obnoxious, it appears there were alternate arguments advanced by the DOJ, 1) that AUMF gave President authority to detain without charges or 2) Article II of the Constitution did.
Since they found authority under the narrower congressional authority, it was unnecessary to rule on the article II basis.
Ratification is the act of giving official sanction or approval to a formal document such as a treaty or constitution. It includes the process of adopting an international treaty by the legislature
and the United States, where treaty ratification must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds majority in the U.S. Senate. The Senate does not actually ratify treaties. Once the Senate has given its advice and consent to ratification, the President ratifies the treaty by signing an instrument of ratification. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democracies to rally enough political support for international treaties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification
The Obama treaty q&a that Rush refers to but does not quote appears below along with the link to the interview Rush discussed. Also included is the cite to Hamdan v. Rushfeld (distinct from Hamdi v. Rushfeld) in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Bush Administration improperly disregarded the Geneva Convention. Again, Obama was correct in stating that it was illegal and unwise for a President to disregard human rights treaties. Rush was not only wrong, but again missed the issue. Wow, I am losing a lot of respect for Rush on this one.
8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?
It is illegal and unwise for the President to disregard international human rights treaties that have been ratified by the United States Senate, including and especially the Geneva Conventions. The Commander-in-Chief power does not allow the President to defy those treaties.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack “the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.”[1] Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention was violated.
Cool. And I need a Photoshop of you boinking a 10 year old boy.”
Wow. You’re really up front about being a pervert.
you’re being intentionally obtuse.
Aren’t you?
Let’s hope.
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.