US Presidential signing statements and the constitution

[S.A.M.]

That was overturned by the Supreme Court, but Hamdan was still tried and convicted and the President declared that he may be indefinitely detained. So the President is not bound by the Rule of Law.

Does this mean that the Constitution has been reinterpreted to state that the President can now override the rule of law?

 

[joepistole]

The POTUS is bound by law if the Congress chooses to make him be bound by law as congress is the only government body with power to remove the president or charge him. So if the Congress refuses to hold the President accountable, he becomes very powerful. Congress is the consitutional check on the POTUS. If they fail to do so, as with Bush II, the POTUS becomes all powerful.

George II even made hiring decisions based on political loyalty to the POTUS...a very dangerous situation. George II was a very dangerous man. And I think he was too stupid to even know it.

 

[S.A.M.]

So in effect, the President can not only re-interpret the Constitution, BUT, if he has Congress in his pocket, he can completely invalidate it.

 

[Read-Only]

So in effect, the President can not only re-interpret the Constitution, BUT, if he has Congress in his pocket, he can completely invalidate it.

That's a very, VERY stupid conclusion, Sam!! You're still TOTALLY ignoring the Supreme Court AND the way the whole system functions.

Just stick with the way things work in your own backwards country and leave the rest of the world alone!:bugeye:

 

[S.A.M.]

You can answer post #17 anytime you feel like it.

 

[Read-Only]

You can answer post #17 anytime you feel like it.

I would - but YOU still wouldn't understand it. So why even make the effort? And I'm not falling for your thinly-veiled anti-American ruse anyway.

 

[TW Scott]

You can answer post #17 anytime you feel like it.

Easy, becuase the Supreme Court has no authority to overrule Geneva Convention. In this case the Conventions are the rules for the handling of POWs, Enemy combatants and so forth. And according to that document we can elect to extend habeas corpus to POW's if we are so inclined, but we're are not required to. In fact it is common to hold such POW's indefinately until prisoner exchanges can be made or the war ends. Since no exchange can be arranged, and there is no real war, the guy is screwed unless he gives up what information he has.

BTW if your wondering why Geneva Conventions overruled the Constitution in this case, it is becuase POW's are not included in the term "The People" as the Supreme Court has defined it. Remeber that "The People" refer to citizen and non citizens residing peacefull in the united States or it's territories. Anyone at a state of war with the US is not included in "the People" though when they play nice we still extend full rights.

 

[joepistole]

So in effect, the President can not only re-interpret the Constitution, BUT, if he has Congress in his pocket, he can completely invalidate it.

The POTUS does not have the right to reintrepret the Consitution. He is bound by law and not above the law. He cannot make law. If the United States Government functions they way it was designed, the POTUS is bound by the Consitution and the law.

 

[S.A.M.]

I would - but YOU still wouldn't understand it. So why even make the effort? And I'm not falling for your thinly-veiled anti-American ruse anyway.

You can start by explaining under which rule of law Hamdan is still in prison and why the Supreme court throwing out all charges against him holds no validity.

 

[TW Scott]

You can start by explaining under which rule of law Hamdan is still in prison and why the Supreme court throwing out all charges against him holds no validity.

Already did.

 

[S.A.M.]

So if the Supreme court throws out the case against Hamdan, and the President still persists in it, which act is unconstitutional?

Who decides the Rule of Law vs the Rule of Men?

 

[joepistole]

The Supreme Court over ruled the POTUS in June of 2006 stating that Congress needed to grant authority to the POTUS. In October of 2006 Congress granted that authorty to the POTUS in the Military Comissions Act of 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

 

[John99]

Joe you aren't even close to spelling overruled correctly.

 

[S.A.M.]

The Supreme Court over ruled the POTUS in June of 2006 stating that Congress needed to grant authority to the POTUS. In October of 2006 Congress granted that authorty to the POTUS in the Military Comissions Act of 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

Which means that the Congress can through constitutional means grant rights to the President to conduct unconstitutional acts?

 

[joepistole]

No, Congress was just doing what the Supreme Court ruled/said would be required in order to make the position of the POTUS conform to the Consitution. So in the end and on the case in question, the POTUS is within the boundaries of the law.

No one or organization can go beyond what is permitted by the Consitution.

 

[TW Scott]

So if the Supreme court throws out the case against Hamdan, and the President still persists in it, which act is unconstitutional?

In this case, neither. the Supreme Court threw out the charges against Hamden becuase of improper handling for the most part. His trial should have been strictly military tribunal as under Geneva Convention. however the US bowing under political pressures began bringing in judges with no knowledge of military law and limited Geneva Conventionexperience to speed things up. Thus the case was mishandled and unfortunately barely brought under Supreme Court jurisdiction. Hamden can still be held indefinately as a POW as his release has NOTHING to do with his trial, but rather a prisoner exchange and/or end of the war.

Who decides the Rule of Law vs the Rule of Men?

these were both Rules of law and unfortunately, hamden is caught in where two sections of law overlap. The moment he became a combatant his fate was sealed.

 

[S.A.M.]

So the US military is not bound by habeas corpus or Rule of Law? It is legal for the US military to try noncombatants as POWs and to refuse them any due process? Is it also alright for other countries to do the same to American citizens they kidnap or hand out booty for?

The Guantanamo detainees are not covered by the Geneva Conventions because according to the US, they are not human beings.

On the sixth anniversary of the imprisonment of detainees at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, a United States judge threw out lawsuit brought by four former British detainees against Donald Rumsfeld and senior military officers for ordering torture and religious abuse, ruling that th the detainees are not "Persons" under U.S. Law, which according to another judge, means that they are less than "human beings".

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also ruled that torture is a "foreseeable consequence" of military detention in dismissing the action brought by Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed and Jamal Al-Harith, who spent more than two years in Guantánamo and were repatriated to the U.K. in 2004.

In a 43-page opinion, Circuit Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute that applies by its terms to all “persons” did not apply to detainees at Guantánamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law.

http://presscue.com/node/39281

Is this part of the Rule of Law, Geneva convention or US constitution?

 

[Baron Max]

So the US military is not bound by habeas corpus or Rule of Law?

That's correct. POWs fall under the rules of the Geneva Convention.

It is legal for the US military to try noncombatants as POWs and to refuse them any due process?

"non-combatants"? Where did you get that term for the POWs? Are you saying that you've already held a legal trial, and that's your ruling, Judge SAM?

Is it also alright for other countries to do the same to American citizens ...

Yes, so long as they conform to the rules of the Geneva Convention. But putting them on video as propaganda, and chopping off their heads on that video, is not exactly conforming to the Geneva Convention, is it.

...they kidnap or hand out booty for?

Kidnapping and rewards for capturing and killing soldiers is not conforming to the rules of the Geneva Convention.

The Guantanamo detainees are not covered by the Geneva Conventions because according to the US, they are not human beings.

They are prisoners of war, SAM. Check the Geneva Convention, read it, study it, then come back and talk to us.

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

Kidnapping and rewards for capturing and killing soldiers is not conforming to the rules of the Geneva Convention.

What about noncombatants? Because thats how most people have landed in Gitmo.

Is torture included in the Geneva conventions? Is it okay to kidnap American noncombatants and treat them like the US is treating the people they have kidnapped and tortured for years?

 

[Baron Max]

What about noncombatants? Because thats how most people have landed in Gitmo.

First, what is a "noncombatant" in your view? And, second, how do you know that they are "noncombatant"? Did you hold a trial or something? Or just believe the propaganda?

And your "torture" comment is so silly that I refuse to respond to it.

Baron Max