SCOTUS declares military tribunals UNCONSTITUTIONAL

mmarsh

mmarsh

Active member
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/w...&en=1aa0983620edfa9b&ei=5094&partner=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....
 
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.
 
Blackwatch said:
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?)
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SCOTUS strikes again ...

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.
 
Last edited:
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....
 
Last edited:
Blackwatch said:
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....
Click to expand...

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/html/nationworld/2003090115_bushlaws28.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.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
The reason we say Bush is a Emperor 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 inconvenient, 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.
Click to expand...
I agree with almost everything you said here, mmarsh, except for the very last sentence. Other presidents have, but not to the extent that George W has. I don't remember the exact figures but it is something like 8 to 10 times more than all other presidents combined.
 
SCOTUS lives on 9/10th while the world has moved to a post 9/11 era.

I wonder what those terrorists would do to any civilized man in their captivity. Did they not behead Americans, russians and Italians and Japanese workers in Iraq?

Lock them in Gitmo forever!
 
signing statements are nothing new and in fact this President is forcing Congress to due it's job instead of grandstanding....granted the numbers are large for the statements but I notice per congressional sources only 110 are law...and congress has the aurthority to overrule such decisions....

As for VP Gore, he was my representive and was also part of the worst team of President/Vice-President ever to serve in the Whitehouse....with maybe the exception of President Andrew Johnson....

The Seattle Times is so left-wing it is almost communist....that is a poor source for anything except to line a birdcage....

Question: you fly the flag of France, mmarsh....why do you care about US internal politics?...I would think you have enough problems there to worry about.....

President Bush will go down in history as one of the better Presidents the US has had....

As for calling people liars...where did I say anyone was a liar here? show me....I said quote"but don't spread lies and gossip." unquote...I will challenge anyone everytime when I feel it is a lie or gossip spread by someone, about anyone....and the Seattle Times nor any of the rag papers, to me, are a source of anything worth printing....because a good liberal is like a good communist....to succeed they have to lie, especally if they are used by a liberal paper that mostly only prints a liberal viewpoint and will not print a opposing view except when it is to a liberals advantage to do so....

'First of all before you refer to people as liars, you should check your facts.'...and never lecture me about anything again mmarsh....when you buy my beer and pay my taxes then MAYBE you can...
 
Last edited:
Blackwatch said:
signing statements are nothing new and in fact this President is forcing Congress to due it's job instead of grandstanding....granted the numbers are large for the statements but I notice per congressional sources only 110 are law...and congress has the aurthority to overrule such decisions....

As for VP Gore, he was my representive and was also part of the worst team of President/Vice-President ever to serve in the Whitehouse....with maybe the exception of President Andrew Johnson....

And yet Clinton's popularity remains at 59-62%, thats double those of Bush. Care to explain this?

The Seattle Times is so left-wing it is almost communist....that is a poor source for anything except to line a birdcage....

Oh please, your showing your bias here. Its a mainstream U.S newspaper, its not like I picked out some obscure newspaper. I could have picked out a number of others with a similar article, just because you disagree doesnt mean its bias. But heres a similar article from the Kansas Star. Are you going to claim the Star is liberal bias too?
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/14915779.htm


Question: you fly the flag of France, mmarsh....why do you care about US internal politics?...I would think you have enough problems there to worry about.....

I'm an American who lives in France. The button refers to location not nationality, not that this really matters.

President Bush will go down in history as one of the better Presidents the US has had....

Says who? Your in the vast minority. I have never heard of a 'better US president' with an approval rate of 32-35%. Face it, your horse is coming in last.

As for calling people liars...where did I say anyone was a liar here? show me....I said quote"but don't spread lies and gossip." unquote...I will challenge anyone everytime when I feel it is a lie or gossip spread by someone, about anyone....and the Seattle Times nor any of the rag papers, to me, are a source of anything worth printing....because a good liberal is like a good communist....to succeed they have to lie, especally if they are used by a liberal paper that mostly only prints a liberal viewpoint and will not print a opposing view except when it is to a liberals advantage to do so....

Basic English class...If you accuse someone of spreading lies thats referring to that person as a liar. I'd be careful about who you refer to as a liar if I were you, because the truth to the Bush Adminstration is like sunlight to a vampire.

'First of all before you refer to people as liars, you should check your facts.'...and never lecture me about anything again mmarsh....when you buy my beer and pay my taxes then MAYBE you can...

Oh but its OK for you to lecture Chief Bones? What a hypocrite! Besides this isn't your site, your're not a moderator, and I don't take orders from you. I am going to keep speaking my mind, so you better get used to it. If you don't like that, crawl back to Freerepublic with the rest of the Bush cheerleaders. And next time you try to speak to me spare me your macho BS, it really doesnt impress me.

Have a Nice Day.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
great lecture, but that is all that it is...you never answered the orginal statements nor backed up the orginal charges, mmarsh....yep, you're right..I am not a moderator, neither are you....but like must that hate President Bush and others that don't agree, liberals get shrill and loud and never back up there opinions based on facts hate based on hate....and opinion....President Lincoln was despised while in office and is now considered a great President....hypocrite? there's a great line....Chief Bones stated a opinion that agreed with you is all, I have no reason to confront him about anything....you decided to start this..and to spread lies and gossip (notice the basic English)... spreading a lie is NOT the same as telling one....but I will state this, all the socalists/communsts and liberals, please keep talking so the American population can see what liberals and socialist/communists really are....

Poll numbers are ALWAYS down in a second term of a President, for a variety of reasons, and they do not count much....the only poll taht counts is the voting booth.

Yep, your are G**D***** right I am a Bush cheerleader, I am also a that pain in the a** type of person liberal deride and hate, the 'redneck', which means men like me clean up messes that liberals make, run the farms and drive the trucks....have there been mistakes made?...yep, but I also Thank God he was there at the time of the greatest attack and war on the US the world has ever known....one set up by liberals and socialists and communists that want to conquer the US and the western alliance, and now working with Islamic Fascists to kill all Americans, every man, woman and child, and most of those in the west alliances too, including France....the time will come when we all will have to fight, I fear...

it's ok....stay in France....

P.S. yep, I am 'Macho' (a real man...many liberals are so.... emotional, don't you think??!), thank you for noticing....
 
Last edited:
Yep, your are G**D***** right I am a Bush cheerleader, I am also a that pain in the a** type of person liberal deride and hate, the 'redneck', which means men like me clean up messes that liberals make, run the farms and drive the trucks....have there been mistakes made?...yep, but I also Thank God he was there at the time of the greatest attack and war on the US the world has ever known....one set up by liberals and socialists and communists that want to conquer the US and the western alliance, and now working with Islamic Fascists to kill all Americans, every man, woman and child, and most of those in the west alliances too, including France....the time will come when we all will have to fight, I fear...
Click to expand...
Oh please, mmarsh is one of the most competent debaters I've ever seen. He lists facts and sources and logical argumetns and you resort to this reheteric crap. Just because there is an attack on America doesnt void the constiution. Yes, I agree I prefer George Bush in office to Gore or Kerry but that doesnt mean I want him to break the law.

P.S. yep, I am 'Macho' (a real man...many liberals are so.... emotional, don't you think??!), thank you for noticing....
Click to expand...
ahaha.

Looking at your bio you very well may be a manly man, doesnt mean you cant be wrong though :)

sorry for the double post, needs to be bumped. Done.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/07/05/about_our_dictator/

Good article
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rabs said:
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.
Click to expand...

Word is out that you may be applying for a job at Gitmo, Rabs.:roll:
 
Blackwatch might be a better candidate - he could be Bush's Torquemada......... LOL

Although, I am not sure what qualifications a real 'redneck' would have for the role ... most of my redneck friends would spit on Blackwatch and his politics..... <NOT> LOL
 
mmarsh said:
Says who? Your in the vast minority. I have never heard of a 'better US president' with an approval rate of 32-35%. Face it, your horse is coming in last.
Click to expand...
Need an update?

July 11, 2006

Bush Job Approval Edges Up to 40%

First time since February that Bush approval in the 40% range

by Joseph Carroll


GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

 PRINCETON, NJ -- President George W. Bush's job approval rating has edged up slightly higher in Gallup's latest poll, and is now at 40% for the first since early February. The July 6-9 poll finds 40% of Americans approving and 55% disapproving of the job Bush is doing as president. After averaging 42% approval in January and early February, Bush's ratings began to decline in mid-February, ultimately dropping to his administration's low point of 31% in early May. Since that time, Bush's approval ratings have shown a slow, gradual improvement.
pr060711bi.gif
Bush's job approval ratings continue to be highly polarized along partisan lines. The president's job approval ratings currently stand at 78% among Republicans, 36% among independents, and lower still among Democrats, at 10%. In early May, Bush's average support was 68% among Republicans, 26% among independents, and 4% among Democrats. His improved public standing has been mainly due to higher ratings by Republicans and independents.
pr060711bii.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top