Replies

"Third, you've discovered a bizarre empowerment for Congress to act on "whim". I suppose then that anything a majority of politicians want to do is fine. You've taken a turn into delusion now. Congress most certainly may not create courts by whim. Those courts are not empowered by Congress, but by Article III, once they are established. Congress only creates them, it can't give them any power not delegated to the judiciary by the Constitution."

On the contrary, Congress has the express right to create an unlimited number of courts (see Article III, Section 1). Further, Congress can grant said courts any and all legislatively-derived powers legally created by Congress (via signed bills) or deemed as a Judiciary Power by the Constitution in the first place.

Again, you show that you are misinterpreting and misapplying the 10th Amendment. You are trying to believe that since the 10th Amendment limits the overall scope of Power of "government", that it prevents the delegation of Power between the three branches of government. That is simply not true. Delegation is not forbidden. In fact, delegation of power is incumbant upon enforcing legislation.

Your bizarre, twisted, and visibly DISPROVEN interpretation of the 10th Amendment would hold that the FAA was unConstitutional. Your view would laughably hold that Congress did not have the authority to delegate its Power to the Post Office to issue and verify stamps, but that members of Congress must issue and verify stamps.

You are guilty of trying to re-interpret the Constitution to fit your own personal version of what our government should look like. You are trying to manipulate the facts to fit your own pre-determined conclusion. It won't work.

Congress CAN delegate power. The President CAN delegate power. Courts even delegate power when they release a prisoner under the supervision of another person.

So repeat after me until it finally soaks into your skull: "Power can be legally delegated".

I don't mean to butt in, but I've been following your discussion.

Both of you seem to be arguing whether or not Congress can delegate the authority to set up a judicial system to Bush.

Regardless of the answer, I would like to see the statutory authority which purportedly made this authorization.
The EO cites 3 statutes for authority. None of them say anything whatsoever about the President erecting a tribunal. Indeed, 10 USC 820 and 10 USC 836 specifically say the President can't do anything contrary to or inconsistent with Congress' version set forth in Chapter 478 of Title 10. (It is obvious and not fairly deniable that the EO is extremely contrary to and inconsistent with Chapter 47.)

So... would someone mind taking a time out and explaining where Bush recieved the authority to do what he has done?

Thanks. ;)

P.S. I'd also like you to address Section 7(b)(2) of the EO. This section abolishes writs of habeas corpus. Didn't the Supreme Court already state that such an action is illegal and unconstitutional? Lincoln tried the same thing and the Court slapped him down. Why is Bush engagin in an act that is not only contrary to the text of the Constitution (which states that only Congress can abolish habeas corpus), but also contrary to the extremely famous and pivotal case of Merryman which dealt with the exact same issue?