Posted on 02/13/2008 3:45:25 PM PST by newbie2008
"Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?" Obama's answer: "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. Now, I just have to think here -- I don't know what to think. He's either ignorant or he's saying something far more dangerous. If he is saying that he's not bound by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law, liberals would have a stroke if Bush claimed the kind of authority that Obama is claiming in this -- and ignorance.
Liberals are out there going bonkers every day over how stupid Bush is. This Obama interview is just scary. Let's see. Find another one here. He gets it wrong on who ratifies treaties and who consents to them. He says the president doesn't have the authority to abolish treaties. And the president does! Bush abolished the ABM Treaty shortly after taking office because Bush said it's irrelevant. The Soviets are gone. I'm getting rid of this. The liberals went nuts, but they couldn't stop him because the president does have the authority to get rid of treaties. Obama says here that the president does not have the authority to undermine Congress, the Senate here, which ratifies treaties. The Senate doesn't ratify, they consent to them. The president makes treaties, negotiates them, comes up with them. When's the last time you saw Gorbachev meeting with some senator at Reykjavik or anywhere else? Gorbachev met with Reagan, for crying out loud.
Point well taken. I didn’t mean to imply that no one but a lawyer could interpret and understand Supreme Court opinions, just that Rush is obviously giving himself way too much credit.
Only if you want to be a politician.
I think Limbaugh might have been mistaken about the process of establishing treaties as the “the law of the land”. The Pres. has the power to negotiate/propose treaties but to say “Rush is dead wrong” about Obama’s lack of historical understanding regarding abolishing agreements (Which is the main point of this thread) is “dead wrong”.
Here is the treaty question and Obama’s response referred to by Rush:
“Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?
It is illegal and unwise for the President to disregard international human rights treaties that have been ratified by the United States Senate, including and especially the Geneva Conventions. The Commander-in-Chief power does not allow the President to defy those treaties.”
As you can see, the issue was not whether the President can “abolish” treaties, which is a very different question from whether he can “disregard” treaties, in this case, the Geneva convention.
The issue was visited in respect Guantanamo detainees in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld where the Supreme Court held in part that the Administration had violated the Geneva Convention. The President had not attempted to “abolish” the convention, but rather to “cherry pick” provisions to abide by or disregard.
I would imagine there would be concern about “abolishing” the Geneva convention, even if the President had the authority to do so, because that would mean the U.S. would no longer be a signatory and thus our military would no longer be protected by its provisions.
The distinction is important and Obama shows precise understanding. The difference should not be whitewashed by Rush for “entertainment” value.Rush blew this attempt to prove Obama’s ignorance, and in the process showed his own.
I generally prefer "Pagode" and "Axe" which are variants of Samba. If you like, you can go to YouTube and do searches on bands like "Exaltasamba", "Nosso Sentimento", "Kilourcura" and "Revelucao" for samples of good Pagode.
You've named the classics, though. You might also like "Lenny Andrade" - [she recorded my favorite version of "Onda" (Wave)], "Martinho Da Vila" and if you enjoy their pop, "Daniela Mercury" is one of the most well known pop singers there (A Bahiana Electrica!)
Martin_Fierro is a big fan of Brasilian tunes as well.
You might like "Lisa Ono" if you like more mellow Bossa Nova and the like.
So many choices. Brasilian music saved me when c"rap" music became popular. I'll go for some of our classics, but it's tough for me to enjoy most recent American pop now.
Thanks, Bob. That’s great information and I will follow up.
Education does not equate to morality.
Bush has a masters degree from Harvard and yet "know nothing DemonRats" call him everything from stupid to Hitler.
Slick Willie went to Oxford. So what?
Well I can’t argue there. Rush does have an over inflated ego which does make itself known from time to time...not as bad as O’Reilly, but definitely there.
That was just one of the arguments (and it's the argument accepted by the Court). But Bush also argued that he didn't need Congressional permission at all, that the Constitution granted him authority to hold citizens indefinitely without charge regardless of what Congress said and regardless of the 5th Amendment. The Court of course ignored that argument.
You're way off the mark here. The clause you cited isn't the Supreme Court's opinion. That clause is a recap of the lower court's opinion, which the Supreme Court vacated. You have things exactly backwards.
Obama is correct. President Bush does claim to have plenary authority under the Constitution to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.
Now Rush says:
It is not the Bush administration's position. The Supreme Court held in 2004 -- this is the famous case, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. . . .But Rush is dead wrong. The Court in Hamdi held nothing of the sort. As was already pointed out to you earlier, the Hamdi Court never even addressed the Constitutional question. Evidently you missed reply #69, so here it is again, with emphasis added by me:
We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government’s alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi’s detention, through the AUMF.Get it now? The Supreme Court did "not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority. . . " Hope that helps.
I know Bobby went to U. of Virginia Law School, but I thought The Swimmer went to Harvard Law. I’ll have to check that out.
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.