DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> PELICANPOST.BLOGSPOT.COM: Mark Levin is outraged... about the outrageous U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan & the trashing of the Constitution, precedent & Geneva Conventions.

Friday, June 30, 2006

Mark Levin is outraged... about the outrageous U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan & the trashing of the Constitution, precedent & Geneva Conventions.

I found a lot of postings online yesterday about the collossal tripe that came out of five Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdan---in the form of a mixed-bag unconstitutional mangling of the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers of the President. It was a blatant grab of power away from the Executive Branch and another treacherous step down the road of unconstitutionally basing decisions upon international law, unsupported opinion, and personal political ideology.

But Mark Levin's analysis, at levin.nationalreview, boils it down to the bottom line and tells it like it is. I appreciate that about Levin..., don't you? Guess that's why Sean Hannity calls him "The Great One." I concur with that opinion.

Some of it below, all at the above link.
__________
"The Outrage of Hamdan"

"Congress and the Court are systematically stripping the presidency of war-making powers. Congress demands that the president get court approval before intercepting enemy communications (we call that intelligence gathering) and the Court demands that the president get statutory support from Congress before he can use military tribunals to try terrorists.

And yet, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court have any explicit constitutional authority to make these decisions. Congress can cut-off funding for the war or any aspect of it, which it has not; and the judiciary's only role in these matters is to defer to the president, who has explicit and broad authority under the Constitution as the commander-in-chief.

Today, the Court has taken a giant new step in its usurpation of explicit presidential authority. The battle against terrorism is being fought as much in our courtrooms as on the field in Iraq and other places — where the likes of the ACLU and activist judges will set policy in contravention of the Constitution.

Congress and the courts are conferring rights and privileges on terrorists. They are conferring constitutonal protections on the enemy. They are granting the enemy jurisdiction in our civilian courts. They are extending the Geneva Conventions to an enemy that is specifically excluded from those protections.

I wrote an entire book on the subject of the Supreme Court, and how it's destroying America. And that's exactly what it's doing...

In the past, the Supreme Court refused to grant such access to our courts. And as I wrote at the time, this is a slippery slope. Having broken down the wall of restraint that had traditionally been recognized by the Court, there appears to be no limit anymore on the judiciary's role in second-guessing the commander-in-chief. And that's exactly what happened today.

The Supreme Court said today that in exercising his constitutional authority, the president had to comply with congressional statutory mandates. I don't believe the establishment of these tribunals violate any statute, but more to the point, since when does a statute trump the Constitution? Since never.

Let's look at the relevant Geneva Convention. First point - since when does a party that has NOT signed a treaty, and does not comply with a treaty, become a part of such a treaty? The Geneva Convention relating to the treatment of prisoners of war...(is) at Article 4...

Well, the activist Supreme Court majority in Hamdan decided to ignore this language. Instead, it looked to "Common Article 3," which has nothing to do with the current war. It requires, as an initial matter, that the conflict be not be of an international character. But the war on terrorism clearly is of an international character. Are the justices blind to the numerous known terrorist cells and conflicts throughout the world?

After rejecting the jurisdictional restriction of this article, the Court then went ahead and applied it to unlawful enemy combatants....

The author of this intellectually dishonest opinion is John Paul Stevens. Stevens did something very similar in the earlier Rasul case in which he played word games with "jurisdiction." In Rasul, the relevant statute provided that a writ of habeas corpus may be granted by a federal judge within their own jurisdiction, meaning within their judicial district.

Stevens twisted that language to mean that a federal judge's jurisdiction extends to any territory over which the U.S. exercises complete control, i.e., Guantanamo Bay — a military base located in a foreign country. In doing so, Stevens also reversed over 50-years of precedent...

In Johnson v. Eisentrager, the Court held it that alien combatants did not have access to U.S. civilian courts.

Today the Supreme Court's majority trashed the Geneva Conventions, trashed Supreme Court precedent, and trashed the Constitution. But it did succeed in expanding its own authority and the ability of the enemy to conduct its war against us..."

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home