Mr. White House Counsel, meet the Constitution

SFGate.com ^ | September 10, 2002 | David R. Henderson

[Boonie Rat]

I teach at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, meaning that I instruct young military officers who are generally smart, hard working and curious.

On Aug. 27, I realized that I might well have one of the best jobs in America. That afternoon, the school's guest speaker was President Bush's White House counsel, Alberto Gonzalez, widely believed to be on the short list for the next Supreme Court appointment. What happened spoke volumes, not just about Gonzalez and his likely positions on the Constitution, but also about the students at the Naval Postgraduate School.

[Boonie Rat]

We don't want him to look like some monster who destroyed our freedom. Trust us."

Hahahahahahahaha! Trust us!! Alberto, you crack me up!! I'm from the government, trust me!! Hahahahahaha!

Boonie Rat

MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66

[muawiyah]

The Constitution simply does not provide for Congress to declare war when the nation has been attacked.

[sheltonmac]

"The Constitution is not based on trust, but on distrust."

Bears repeating.

[Pushi]

The problem is: Gonzales is a lawyer, too. I don't hold lawyers in the highest regard. I would like to see a non-lawyer on the Supreme Court--which is quite legal.

[verity]

". I am a lawyer"

May God have mercy on your soul.:~)

[GirlNextDoor]

I didn't need to be the one to remind him: The students did the job and much more.

Hurrah!!

[Beenliedto]

The Constitution simply does not provide for Congress to declare war when the nation has been attacked.

Huh?

[ChuckHam]

This is a wonderful article. I am a lawyer. We, as lawyers are all well grounded in the Constitution. Gonzales is a political hack trying to get on the Supreme Court by telling his boss what he wants to hear but he is so outrageously wrong.

Just what FR needed, another lib RAT lawyer. Everything you said is your opinion, not fact. Just as my opinion of lib RAT lawyers is my own opinion. Also, in my opinion I don't believe congress has to declare war for the president to respond to an attack on our country.

[Destructor]

"In his speech, Gonzalez tried to justify not just war without a congressional declaration, but also the government's decision to imprison U.S. citizens such as Jose Padilla, the alleged "dirty bomber," without charging them with a crime or allowing them a lawyer. Padilla is now in a military prison in South Carolina."

I was listening to a "Town Meeting" on KVET in Austin,Texas this morning. The meeting consisted of several local Radio personalities debating the detainment of the suspected terrorists. One of the Disk Jockies known as "Bama" Brown said that one of his White House contacts told him that there were 50 attacks planned for September 11, 2001. There were the 4 attacks that were carried out, and several more that were foiled once the airplanes were grounded nationwide.

If this is true,imagine what it would have ensued if 50 targets had been hit, rather than the 3 that were hit. America still wouldn't be fully recovered from an attack of that scale. The fact is that these men are dangerous, and should be detained!

[Viva Le Dissention]

I would like to see a non-lawyer on the Supreme Court--which is quite legal.

Even if it is quite legal, and I might challenge that statement, I think it opens up a lot of problems. I just don't think a non-lawyer could be a competent voter on a lot of issues that the Supreme Court decides.

Personally, I really rather not roll those lifetime appointment dice on an experiment to find out whether a non-lawyer can deal with the legal ins and outs that are required of a Supreme Court Justice.

[GirlNextDoor]

. One of the Disk Jockies known as "Bama" Brown said that one of his White House contacts told him that there were 50 attacks planned for September 11, 2001. There were the 4 attacks that were carried out, and several more that were foiled once the airplanes were grounded nationwide.

Can these reports be verified? Although it's already obvious that landing/grounding planes was the only logical, sane response. Ben Sliney, the FAA's national operations manager, did a good job.

[Beenliedto]

there were 50 attacks planned for September 11, 2001. There were the 4 attacks that were carried out, and several more that were foiled once the airplanes were grounded nationwide.

The math does not compute.

So four were carried out, "several (more than two, fewer than many) were foiled...

What happened to the other thirty five or forty?

[mrsmith]

"If you suspend habeas corpus for some U.S. citizens,"

NO ONE'S HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED.

PADILLA AND HAMDI BOTH HAVE HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS BEFORE COURTS RIGHT NOW.

IF THE COURT DECIDES THEIR DETENTION IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE 9/11 CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR MILITARY FORCE THEY WILL BE RELEASED.

[billbears]

Also, in my opinion I don't believe congress has to declare war for the president to respond to an attack on our country.

What? Does your version of the Constitution not have an Article I Section 8 in it? Huh, must be one of those 'living breathing' ones that liberals always speak of. Fact is, it's there in black and white. Just because you choose to disagree with it doesn't mean it's not there

[rollin]

Perhaps, you can enlighten those of us who live in this country, just how long it will take for the court to make this decision . . . one day, one week, one month, one year, one century or even longer.

If it is anything past a month, in my opinion, the Constitution has been destroyed.

[Triple]

Thanks for the ping, that 'based on distrust' line was the best, and I've never heard it before.

There is hope.

Regards,

[dirtboy]

PADILLA AND HAMDI BOTH HAVE HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS BEFORE COURTS RIGHT NOW.

However, the Bush Administration has claimed that the Judiciary has no right of review for those declared enemy combatants. So the Bush Admin believes that habeas corpus SHOULD be suspended for those people. The courts may decide otherwise, but the intent of the Bush Administration is rather clear...

[mrsmith]

I agree it's taking too long.
In the Hamdi case it's because the judge is incompetent IMHO.
In the Padilla case it's mostly the administration's fault for moving him at the last minute.

[dirtboy]

Also, in my opinion I don't believe congress has to declare war for the president to respond to an attack on our country.

Just like FDR did after Pearl Harbor. Oops, sorry, he went to Congress to ask for a declaration of war, and used his speech there as a means to build overwhelming support for the war. Funny how following the rules of the Constitution works best...