Replies

I wondered if someone would be so desperate to criticize the Constitutionality of the Congress's use of it's war Powers that they would try to get away with saying that padilla's Habeas Corpus rights had been suspended-
even though Padilla's habeas corpus petition is before a court at this very minute!

The liberal desire to reinterpret the Constitution to give the Judicial Branch the power to try combatants- like all liberal schemes to write new rights into it (for our own good of of course)- disgusts me.

If you don't like what the Founders did you should try to amend the Constitution.
And you can pass that on to your ACLU buddies.

If you don't like what the Founders did you should try to amend the Constitution.

You should take your own advice:

Article III Section. 3.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted (CONVICTED, AS IN TRIAL) of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court" (COURT, AS IN THE PLACE TRIALS ARE HELD).

"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

The Constitution is crystal clear in these matters. Americans who levy war against their own country are considered treasonous, by definition. Americans accused of treason are constitutionally guaranteed a trial.

Note: it's been a month this the petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been requested.

The judge has said he doesn't know if or when he'll rule on it.

Sounds like it's being denied to me.

Speaking of re-interpreting the Constitution, I wasn't aware that the government had the right to pick and choose to whom it extended the "right" of a jury trial. Apparently that was in the second printing.