jJim McLaughlin wrote:

You mean the Article I, Section 9 part that reads:

"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." This, of course, seemingly conflicts with the president's
Article II
powers. But that apparent conflict was sorted out hundreds of years
ago; the president's wartime powers trump the habeas corpus
restriction. For example, during WW2, we had 511 POW camps in the
US, housing some 475,000 of enemy POWs (some even US citizens). Not
one had habeas corpus rights.

Problem is that the recent statute purports to eliminate the writ, not
merely suspend it. And under the cConstitution you can't eliminate
the writ. Further, the writ may only be suspended in case of
Invasion or Rbellion. Last I looked there was neither going on. So the
legislation is invalid on its face.

Actually, the constitution is silent on the possibility of elimination. As I
tried to point out, in cases of conflict, something has to give. Tradition,
precedence, and common sense have established that the president's
war-making power is primary. Secondly, it does not matter what the
constitution says; the only thing that counts is what the constitution
means. Authority for determining what the constitution means is vested with
the judiciary who, for 230 years, have universally held that the president's
Article II powers are supreme. The law to which you refer merely codifies
that which has been common law since the Magna Carta.


Further, the legislation purports to apply to everyone -- youtr
grandmother, your grandkids, your significant other, and anybody at
Gitmpo.

Sure, we don't have multiple layers of law.


When you quote Article I Section 9, take the time to read the
legislation in detail and quotre it, too.

Be real careful what you wish for, you may get it.


If wishes were fishes.... I depend, rather, on techniques making it
impossible for my political opponents to properly vote, such as allocating
too few voting machines in their strong areas, hiring a policeman to stand
outside the polling place door to intimidate the criminal element,
challenging each voter at the polls, designing the ballot such that those of
wee intellect vote for the tooth-fairy, and so on.

I'm trying to get the president to delegate the power to annoint some voters
as "unlawful enemy combatants" so we won't have to fool with them.