[Sandy]

"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.

Rush is way off base here. The Court never even addressed the President's claim of plenary authority under the Constitution. It was the statutory authority of the AUMF that saved Bush's ass in Hamdi. *If* the Court had addressed the Article II argument, Bush would have likely lost 8-1, with only Thomas backing him.

[Adammon]

It’s unfortunate that his fact-checking interns made such a gross error :/ The idea that the President can detain US citizens as enemy combatants without trial should be anathema to everything a true conservative stands for.

[BunkDetector]

You and the court are WAY off here. Obviously you and they have been to school.(big mistake)
If only you had the gift of common sense.
Around here we prefer people who FEEL they know stuff rather than those who actally do so.

[BunkDetector]

You and the court are WAY off here. Obviously you and they have been to school.(big mistake)
If only you had the gift of common sense.
Around here we prefer people who FEEL they know stuff rather than those who actually do so.

[Boatlawyer]

Thanks for the squib. Osama was a constitutional law prof at University of Chicago (best law school in the country, better than Harvard), so my money is on him in a constitutional law question. Plus, when the qualifier plenary is used to describe any authority it’s a signal that there’s more to the story.

Rush has the distinct advantage of being able to pass off this kind of malarkey without consequence, listeners should at least be somewhat skeptical.

[Sudetenland]

Wasn't the AUMF the basis of the states argument for plenary authority.

The AUMF has been the basis for the claim of exemption under the FISA act for the so-called warrantless wiretaps, I assume that it was also given as the basis for the right to detain unlawful combatants without due process.

I haven't read the entire case, so I'm just pulling this out of my a$$, but that what I believe I remember being argued by the DOJ.