The SCOTUS has declared the military tribunals set up by President Bush to be unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Justice Breyer writes:

"Congress has not issued the executive a blank check, Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary,"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/wa...rtner=homepage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was long overdue. I have no love for Hamza, but the president is NOT an emporer, he is not allowed make the law up as he goes along. The SCOTUS made it clear that Bush can have his military courts but he needs to get an OK from Congress. The same goes for the wiretaps and the bank tapping. The president does not have the right to usurp the power given to Congress and the Judiciary by the Constitution. This is basic Political Science 101. Why doesnt the president seek the permission from Congress? Pure Arrogence. These people think they are above the law. I'm glad to see the SCOTUS put him back in his place.

A victory for Democracy.

I agree. I think that the time will also come when the President's use of "signing statements" to avoid following laws he deems inconvenient will also be ruled on by the Supreme Court in the same fashion, i.e. they are illegal.

I DISAGREE STRONGLY....these are NOT U.S. citizens so the U.S Constituation does not apply to enemy combatents....nor does the Geneva conventions....they simply need shot or hung after the have had ALL their intell value squeesed out of them....this President is doing EVERYTHING he can and he is following the laws of the land, not ["signing statements" to avoid following laws he deems inconvenient will also be ruled on by the Supreme Court in the same fashion, i.e. they are illegal.] which is absolute crap. (more left wing propaganda?)

this is a major mistake by the The SCOTUS....in fact they should had ruled to protect the U.S. completely instead of playing into the hands of people that political dispise him who make comments like 'This was long overdue. I have no love for Hamza, but the president is NOT an emporer, he is not allowed make the law up as he goes along. The SCOTUS made it clear that Bush can have his military courts but he needs to get an OK from Congress. The same goes for the wiretaps and the bank tapping. The president does not have the right to usurp the power given to Congress and the Judiciary by the Constitution. This is basic Political Science 101. Why doesnt the president seek the permission from Congress? Pure Arrogence. These people think they are above the law. I'm glad to see the SCOTUS put him back in his place.' or " when the President's use of "signing statements" to avoid following laws he deems inconvenient will also be ruled on by the Supreme Court in the same fashion, i.e. they are illegal.'' again, complete crap....there are no rules in aterrorist war but to kill the enemy, as quickly and brutally as possble...winning only counts, and this is a religoius war that the ragheads started....

Yes! Your system works! "Gitmo" is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Awesome

your Constitution, Mr President!

No Gitmo is just fine, It's the way he tried to put them on trial. Nothing in the process is truly unconstitutional except for his abuse of power in trying to force the military tribunals.

Originally Posted by Blackwatch

I DISAGREE STRONGLY....these are NOT U.S. citizens so the U.S Constituation does not apply to enemy combatents....nor does the Geneva conventions....they simply need shot or hung after the have had ALL their intell value squeesed out of them....this President is doing EVERYTHING he can and he is following the laws of the land, not ["signing statements" to avoid following laws he deems inconvenient will also be ruled on by the Supreme Court in the same fashion, i.e. they are illegal.] which is absolute crap. (more left wing propaganda?)

Blackwatch you miss the point entirely. Nobody is saying the presidents cannot have his courts, in fact Breyer said he can have the courts. This is about the powers of the president. The SCOTUS is saying The President doesn't have the power to create a entirely newly legal system completely on his own. That is a clear abuse of power. The US constitution does not allow this. Its a good ruling.

where and how does it say the President has created an entirely new legal system?...I read the brief...show me where? This President is operating under the will of congress, with congressional management and mandate....this brief and decision is actually a windfall for this President....there is NO abuse of power in any form...and this President is doing his job....quote..."Sens. Graham and Kyl: "We intend to pursue legislation in the Senate granting the Executive Branch the authority to ensure that terrorists can be tried by competent military commissions. Working together, Congress and the administration can draft a fair, suitable, and constitutionally permissible tribunal statute." Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist echoed their comments and promised, "I will pursue the earliest possible action in the United States Senate."... unquote

Gitmo is very much Constitutional and very, very necessary.....perhaps the US should send all the killers in gitmo to Germany (they hate the German people too remember), eh Mohmar Deathstrike?

Very interesting interview....there are NO innocent men at Gitmo...

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2126364&page=1

The main problem I have with the ruling by SCOTUS was the finding that these terrorists fall under the Geneva Convention (article 3). The fault with this finding is because the convention only applies to countries involved in a war ... these terrorists wear NO uniform and owe NO allegiance to any country, they are enemy combatants that fall outside the bounds of the convention.

I dislike GW immensely ... but ... congress can over-rule SCOTUS.

As Blackwatch states and I quote:
Sens. Graham and Kyl: "We intend to pursue legislation in the Senate granting the Executive Branch the authority to ensure that terrorists can be tried by competent military commissions. Working together, Congress and the administration can draft a fair, suitable, and constitutionally permissible tribunal statute".

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist echoed their comments and promised, "I will pursue the earliest possible action in the United States Senate". unquote.

My argument with GW has never been that these criminals are being held incommunicado in GITMO without access to due process, my argument has and will remain the usurping of power by POTUS ... his constant usage of "signing statements" to cut out portions of legislation he doesn't believe apply to him set my teeth on edge. Many many decisions he has made that run contrary to law could have been resolved by going to congress to get authorization ... the wiretaps could have been legalized by going to the "secret courts" even after the taps were put in place. Other decisions are of this type ... GW making decisions that are blatantly illegal.

GW was NOT elected to be our emperor of king, he was elected to fulfill the office of the President of the United States and to UPHOLD THE LAWS OF THE LAND ... not to ONLY obey those laws he agrees with.

I can only hope that this slap on the wrist by SCOTUS is the beginning of the first act of the people taking back the Office of the President.

It's long past due.

please show me where, and exactly, how this current President has NOT upheld the laws of the land and ONLY obeys the laws he agrees with....when? where? how?....or do you mean the past President, prior to this current one, that did nothing to stop any threat whatsoever to the U.S.?

Where is it show and proven that the current President Bush has taken over and is the emperor or king? was the US military involved in a coup d'ete that I am unaware of?....what laws has this President broken? is this President under formal investagation by congress for impeachment for trying to be emperor?

you state "My argument with GW has never been that these criminals are being held incommunicado in GITMO without access to due process, my argument has and will remain the usurping of power by POTUS"....why? these are NOT US citizens and are not entitled to ANY thing but basic human needs, although they get much, much more....that right under our constitution to due process does not apply to civilians waging war who are not in the uniform of a soverign nation's military nor that operate under the flag of a soverign nation government....the only mistake this President and Congress made was NOT to formally declare war, as the constitution allows....

you state "his constant usage of "signing statements" to cut out portions of legislation he doesn't believe apply to him set my teeth on edge" EVERY President has done so, as is expected of them,it is the reason why there is a Congress...did you feel the same when President Clinton tried to set up a socialist state by using the office of the Preisdent to do so? or of the thousands of political cronies he personly set free that did NOT face American justice?

you state "Many many decisions he has made that run contrary to law could have been resolved by going to congress to get authorization" where you personally there when he met with both senate and house intell commettees and 'made decisions that run contrary to law'? or did a little birdy tell you he did this?

hey, you don't like the man...that's fine...you don't want the man as President, that's fine....but don't spread lies and gossip....

The very thought of Al Gore incharge or Senator Kerry representing me to the world sends shivers of dread through me...Thank God there was a George Bush there....

Originally Posted by Blackwatch

please show me where, and exactly, how this current President has NOT upheld the laws of the land and ONLY obeys the laws he agrees with....when? where? how?....or do you mean the past President, prior to this current one, that did nothing to stop any threat whatsoever to the U.S.?

Where is it show and proven that the current President Bush has taken over and is the emperor or king? was the US military involved in a coup d'ete that I am unaware of?....what laws has this President broken? is this President under formal investagation by congress for impeachment for trying to be emperor?

You state "My argument with GW has never been that these criminals are being held incommunicado in GITMO without access to due process, my argument has and will remain the usurping of power by POTUS"....why? these are NOT US citizens and are not entitled to ANY thing but basic human needs, although they get much, much more....that right under our constitution to due process does not apply to civilians waging war who are not in the uniform of a soverign nation's military nor that operate under the flag of a soverign nation government....the only mistake this President and Congress made was NOT to formally declare war, as the constitution allows....

you state "his constant usage of "signing statements" to cut out portions of legislation he doesn't believe apply to him set my teeth on edge" EVERY President has done so, as is expected of them,it is the reason why there is a Congress...did you feel the same when President Clinton tried to set up a socialist state by using the office of the Preisdent to do so? or of the thousands of political cronies he personly set free that did NOT face American justice?

you state "Many many decisions he has made that run contrary to law could have been resolved by going to congress to get authorization" where you personally there when he met with both senate and house intell commettees and 'made decisions that run contrary to law'? or did a little birdy tell you he did this?

hey, you don't like the man...that's fine...you don't want the man as President, that's fine....but don't spread lies and gossip....

The very thought of Al Gore incharge or Senator Kerry representing me to the world sends shivers of dread through me...Thank God there was a George Bush there....

First of all before you refer to people as liars, you should check your facts. TomTom and the Chief are both correct in their statements. This article from 2 days ago explain what TomTom and Chief Bones are referring to. Your questions of what signing statements are is answered there. you'll notice that some of Bush's critics, (including the head critic) on signing statements are fellow Republicans.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ushlaws28.html

The reason we say Bush is a Emporer is not because he broke laws (although I expect they'll be some investigations on that in the near future), its because the President has overstepped his authority. The president job is to uphold the law, ALL the law. He is not allowed to ignore the parts he deems inconvient, which is what hes trying to do with these signing statements. Its illegal, its an abuse of power, and Congress won't stand for it and your you are wrong to say every president has done it. They simply haven't.

Al Gore did represent you as Vice president for 8 years and most Americans agree that the country was much better off during that time. You like Bush, thats your right, but don't be surprised or angry if most of your fellow countrymen happen to think differently.