Posted on 11/18/2001 1:30:37 PM PST by It'salmosttolate
No, I said that the President is explicitly endowed by our Constitution with ALL power(s) over ALL military concerns. Thus, our President can both delegate the power to run a military campaign to a general rather than personally micromanage a military affair, as well as create military tribunals at his discretion.
I also cited the Constitutional passage which permits Congress, contrary to your uninformed claims, to form federal civilian courts at its leisure.
In contrast, you've been unable to cite ANY legal support in the Constitution for ANY of your own arguments.
Although you don't seem intellectually capable of grasping what I've said, I'll repeat it again for clarity:
The tenth amendment does limit overall federal government power (reserving all non-enumerated powers to the states and people, of course - not that such matters had ever been in question in this thread prior to you trying to toss that in as a red herring), however, the tenth amendment does NOT override the EXPLICIT (look it up, you clearly haven't grasped that word) powers given to the federal government in the numerous Constitutional enforcement clauses (look that phrase up, too - you clearly haven't been able to grasp that our Constitution even has enforcement clauses literally written in its text).
The Constitution DOES give the President the explicit authority to delegate power (gasp, even to generals and private defense contractors). The Constitution DOES give Congress the explicit authority to enact ALL legislation necessary to enforce various Congressional powers, INCLUDING the ability to delegate power (be such "delegation" to a Postal employee, FAA employee/inspector, or to the President for waging military actions).
I've shown you SPECIFIC portions of our Constitution which unerringly support my summaries above. In contrast, you've managed only to carp that it just isn't so, as if the FAA was illegal or Presidents weren't allowed to have a general run their war for them.
Clearly you don't want mere facts to stand in the way of your wild-eyed opinion.
So be it, just don't think that posting your level of nonsense, devoid of any Constitutional cites, facts, or logical support will sway any reasonable mind toward a more favorable disposition of your long-since-discredited swill.
"They're probably just the sorts who suspect there's a hot meal in a trough waiting for them just because the chutes of the charnel house remind them of the route -- less traveled -- to their secure little pen with all the rights and amenities a long pig could want back home."
Well phrased assessment of those who THINK they are insiders and will be rewarded for their small efforts supporting the new order of life in these several states.
Bet ya' got some Names (screennames) in mind, dontcha? ;-)"
Long Screenname Raygun took exception to that. Wonder Why? ;-)
You don't know what habeas corpus is.
Go look it up.
It is a writ filed with the JUDICIAL BRANCH asking for the JUDICIAL BRANCH to decide if the EXECUTIVE BRANCH has the authority to detain the accused.
Are you suggesting that the accused, being held by the EXECUTIVE BRANCH, look to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH for help?
ha.
Actually, the court will be deciding on a case by case basis whether the particular 'accused' amounts to an "unlawful beligerent"; it is only "unlawful beligerents" afterall that can be tried by the type of tribunal Bush has created. At least according to Quirin.
If you read the opinion, however, one would be hard-pressed to articulate how the individuals described in the EO could ever amount to "unlawful beligerents."
Nah...
Too broad. Thanks to the Patriot Act, "terrorist" is defined to include 80% of Freepers.
In any case, the EO covers those who were merely "former members" of Al Quaida. Could you imagine the Quirin court allowing FDR to summarily try and execute those who were merely "former members" of the NAZI party?
In any case, over the weekend I had time to read the caselaw on this a bit more closely. Any constitutional challenge will come on a case by case basis as the SC, through writs of habeas corpus, decide whether or not the particular accused is an "unlawful beligerent." However, I doubt that the accuseds will ever be given the chance to file anything; as it is, we have over 1,500 individuals detained incomunicado.
I don't expect Bush's courts to summarily try and execute people who are only guilty of being former members of al Qaeda, and if the executive branch and the military court are foolish enough to try to pass such a sentence I think the current Supreme Court would strike it down.
Nuremberg...
Heck, at least two of those tried were acquitted, too.
Nuremburg was a different type of tribunal altogether.
That's funny. The Russians seemed to think that it was an allied military tribunal...
Southack, there is more than one type of military tribunal.
The tribunal in Nuremburg did not suffer from the same types of constitutional defects as typified in Bush's latest EO.
First, the Nuremburg trials were military tribunals. Second, the right to file for habeas corpus was not available to those being tried at Nuremburg, but those being tried in today's military tribunals could certainly have their attorneys file for habeas corpus with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Finally, President Bush's latest EO has no Constitutional defects. Per our Constitution, our President has 100% authority over ALL aspects of all military affairs.
Actually, you are correct. But, in Quirin, USSC denied habeas corpus to German saboteurs. Essentially, these persons challenged the power of the President to try them in military court. USSC upheld this power.
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.