[Loud Mime]

Of course, the executive branch enforces laws originated by the congress.

Or present in the Constitution? Right?

But when a President or the Judiciary creates law out of thin air, (which, in this case, they have not) or attempts to enforce (you mean "create a power?") a power when there is no congressional or constitutional authority for that power, that is usurpation of power, which is tyranny.

You do not deny that the power is in the Constitution. In this case, I would say that your best position is that your argument concerning who implements the power of the suspension of habeaus corpus is "debatable", not absoute.

By design of the separation of powers, the Executive has power, and the duty, to enforce the law. The hc suspension fits in his hands better than the legislative. The fact that the Democrats, in all these years, have NOT filed suit on their hated George Bush concerning this matter seems, to me, to have closed this argument.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>Or present in the Constitution? Right?<<<

Huh? That makes no sense.

>>>By design of the separation of powers, the Executive has power, and the duty, to enforce the law.<<<

That is correct. The congress creates law, the executive enforces it.

>>>The fact that the Democrats, in all these years, have NOT filed suit on their hated George Bush concerning this matter seems, to me, to have closed this argument.<<<

Either that, or Bush never suspended Habeas Corpus. I suspect it was the latter.

[Loud Mime]

Of course, the executive branch enforces laws originated by the congress. Or present in the Constitution? Right?

Since the Constitution was not originated by the Congress, we must add it to what laws the executive branch enforces. See? It makes sense.

[Tublecane]

“The fact that the Democrats, in all these years, have NOT filed suit on their hated George Bush concerning this matter seems, to me, to have closThe fact that the Democrats, in all these years, have NOT filed suit on their hated George Bush concerning this matter seems, to me, to have closed this argument.ed this argument.”

Not really. Habeas corpus, like most legal protections, does not apply to enemies in time of war. Though there is an approximation of justice, from time to time, it is something altogether different from what those of us who are under the jurisdiction of the government experience. For instance, when U.S. soldiers execute combatants in the field, they don’t abide by due process. They abide by the rules of engagement. That is not to say that George Bush has thrown out the fifth amendment by denying enemy combatants due process. They never had a right to assert such a protection.