For the first time in U. S. history, the Supreme Court has extended its authority even (unconstitutionally) further. The Supreme Court ruled today (actually, now yesterday, at least on the East Coast that is!) that TERRORISTS, captured on the battlefields of Aghanistan and Iraq, now have Constitutional protection. They can contest their detention at GUANTANAMO BAY as prisoners of war. They have the same rights now under this ruling as YOU and I to appear in Federal Court and demand their release. According to the FOX NEWS website, the Court held that, “Petitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause's protections because they have been designated as enemy combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo."
“The Suspension Clause is a constitutional guarantee that blocks Congress from suspending habeas corpus.” A writ of habeas corpus is a court order to prison officials to bring a prisoner before the court to determine if the prisoner is being detained legally, and whether or not the prisoner should be released. Terrorists now have that right. Don’t get me wrong with what I’m about to say. I don’t have any sympathy for anyone breaking the law and being sent to prison. There are penalties for breaking the law. But, prisoners here are American citizens, and in my opinion, Al Quaeda and Taliban terrorists have more rights than American prisoners.
Anyway, here’s where the Court is just simply WRONG. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Wouldn’t the attacks of September 11, 2001 sort of be “an invasion”? Absolutely. The Court is wrong, period.
I would like to look at a couple of things. First, since when does ANYONE that is not a citizen of the United States entitled to protection under our Constitution? Does the Constitution say ANYWHERE that it extends to foreign nationals? Especially foreign nationals that have the utmost hatred for ALL OF US? Here is a link where you can read it for yourself:
Next concerns the authority of the Supreme Court. For way too long, the Supreme Court has been allowed to overstep its Constitutional authority and make laws. Here is the scope of the power of the Supreme Court as defined by the Constitution:
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Does it say anywhere that Supreme Court rulings BECOME law? No. One of the purposes of the Supreme Court is to INTERPRET the law. Does it say anywhere that the Supreme Court has any kind of authority over military matters? No. So today, the Supreme Court, once again, overstepped it’s authority.
The problem with this particular ruling is, that contrary to how the mainstream media is spinning it, it is NOT a loss for the Bush Administration. It’s a loss for the United States and national security. The Bush Administration had the consent of Congress on this, so this being construed as a loss for the President is misrepresentation.
In keeping with my general policy of who should accept responsibility for their actions, here are the names of the justices who made this ruling:
Justice Anthony Kennedy
Justice John Paul Stevens
Justice Stephen Breyer
Justice David Souter
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
These are the justices that don’t care about your safety or national security. These five justices actually believe that prisoners of war captured ON THE BATTLEFIELD, and in addition are TERRORISTS, INCLUDING ONE THAT ADMITTED HE HELP PLAN THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 ATTACKS, that hate all of us and wish us all dead, now have at least the same rights, if not more rights than AMERICAN CITIZENS accused of a crime or who are already serving time in prison.
I don’t know how, but the Supreme Court needs to be put back into its Constitutional place. The Supreme Court is accountable to no one, not even the President, and especially NOT TO US, the people. They have become almighty, all powerful, and allowed special interest groups such as the ACLU to bypass the established legislative process (Congress and the President) in order to promote a leftist agenda.
One last thing: I do want to thank those justices who stood for what was right:
Chief Justice John Roberts
Justice Antonin Scalia
Justice Clarence Thomas
Justce Samuel Alito
We do have four justices that know the Constitution.
I do hope that Congress once again reaffirms our Constitution and that the Supreme Court, a civilian court, has no jurisdiction over military matters.
5 comments:
I would strongly disagree with your assessment.
The terrorists are NOT being given more rights as any American. The court simply ruled that the US Gov't must abide by the Constitution at all times. The detainees cannot be labeled as "enemy combatants" in order to get around US Law & the Geneva Convention --- that is what the court has said, not that the detainees have any more rights than any American.
As for the assertion that 9/11 was an invasion, I would disagree. Nor is there a rebellion. The public safety is not threatened in any way by the gov't having to show cause to detain the prisoners.
Basically, the court has said the Bush Admin may not change the rules. The detainees must be tried either in military court under existing military laws, or in civil court under the laws of the land. A special court with special rules & without normal legal protections are simply not allowed.
I would also disagree that this is the first time the court has done this. The court ruled that Lincoln couldn't suspend habeas corpus either, saying that only Congress could do that as the Civil War met the Constitutional provision. The Supreme Court today said habeas corpus may not be suspended by Bush =or= Congress since there is no meeting of the provision to suspend.
Don't think I'm in favor of going easy on the terrorists. Not at all. But that is not the point of the court ruling today. The court simply said that the US must obey its laws at all times. The Constitution was written specifically for times such as this, detailing what we =will do as a matter of law= when this situation is upon us. It is. And we must do what our Constitution says we will do.
To simplify matters, I wish that we would release them back into the waiting arms of our Iraqi 'allies' for proper safe keeping and justice-- AFTER we are done interrogating them.
Out of sight-- out of mind, of the Liberal, Lefty people here who never served in the armed forces. Just my opinion.
Tom S
Tom: Serving or not serving in the military is irrelevant. The issue is the Constitution, not military service. Also, the military is under the =civil= authority, not the other way around.
Hi Dirk- You know how angry this makes me, and I'm not even a citizen (yet!) I would like everyone to call, write, fax and e mail their congress members and state reps and let them know that these 5 justices( I say that with heavy sarcasm right now) must be impeached and thrown out of "office" for treason. It's disgusting. As I read on Hal Lindsay's commentary today on WorldNetDaily, the Jihaddists didn't declare war on George W. Bush- they declared it on America- so this is not just a "blow" to George W. Bush, but for our soldiers who might as well start asking insurgents if they are aware of their rights, and their right to an attorny- if they have no attorney, one will be provided for them- most likely courtesy of the american criminal liberty union- and most likely paid by AMerican taxpayers. This war is hard enough with civil lawsuits- in a time of WAR it is up to military courts- not american civil courts in American cities. How rediculous are these people to think that our soldiers over there would be awarded anything other than torture and beheading!!!! Sorry Dirk- I'll quit my rant for now. God Bless and thank you so much for covering this atrocity. Carolyn
Carolyn: You are right. These guys should be tried in military court & the Supreme Court has ruled that is allowed =IF= the military uses the same rules it has always used in accordance with the Geneva Convention. The US can't just make up new rules: the gov't must obey its own law. That is what the court said: either use the military court & the existing military law, or use the civil court. One or the other, but either way, the gov't must obey its own law.
Post a Comment