Replies

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?

"I'd also like you to address Section 7(b)(2) of the EO. This section abolishes writs of habeas corpus."

I'm presuming that you understand what "abolish" actually means. Of course, all American citizens still have the right of habeas corpus. Under that assumption above then, habeas corpus can not have been "abolished" by definition.

Now someone (probably a flaky college professor) has obviously tried to convince you that habeas corpus has been "abolished" with the creation of President Bush's military tribunals. What those flakes won't tell you (because facts interfere with their ideology) is that foreign beligerents never had the right of habeas corpus in the first place. It's pretty hard to "abolish" something when one party never had said right and all other parties still retain that right, so let's refrain from claiming that habeas corpus has been "abolished" in the future, shall we.

As for President Bush's authority to create military tribunals in which to try foreign beligerents (some of whom may even be illegally on U.S. soil), please recall that the civilian President of the United States is also the supreme military commander in chief in complete control of ALL aspects of military operations and personnel. Military tribunals therefor fall under his authority per our Constitution.

I'm unable to give you any cite of legislation or constitutional article which empowers the President to establish this system of tribunals. My view is that he is acting outside his proper powers by issuing any EO whatsoever which is supposed to be binding on anyone other than Executive branch employees or the military.

My friend, southack, refers to the writ of habeus corpus as a right. Actually, it's more properly referred to as the privilege of the writ of habeus corpus, as you probably know. The President has no power to suspend the writ, as Roger Taney properly pointed out in his Merryman opinion. Unfortunately, Lincoln didn't take it as a slap-down, but instead as an affront to his wrongfully assumed authority. Most of the slapping down of Lincon's bizarre usurpations of power were handed out after his death.

Thanks for your response. It's nice to converse with someone who is awake when he posts.

Your servant, sir.

Edd