General Discussion

Robb

(39,665 posts)

34. Checks and balances.

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 05:27 PM

Dec 2011

USSC has ruled on the issue; Congress can't pass a law that blatantly undermines that without a legal challenge.

The President used a veto threat to get changes that, while they don't correct the "big" issue, make sure Congress doesn't pass a law that would almost certainly begin a faceoff with the Supremes.

He knows he can run the clock on the court if he gets four more years to pick another seat or two (and he probably will), and in the meantime run AUMF to the ground by actually destroying al Qaeda. Once a decent legal argument can be made that al Q are no longer a meaningful threat, look for challenges to AUMF to begin in earnest -- especially if there's a US citizen detainee case.

A seriously creepy chess player would make certain there was one in the pipeline, so to speak, set to go off in court at just the right time to end this national nightmare.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What part of non-citizen don't you understand? [View all] county worker Dec 2011 OP

Outrage is preferable to comprehension in the minds of some. MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #1

That's a little rough. I think the Feinstein amendment is inherently confusing Robb Dec 2011 #15

It's poorly written legislation is what it is Aerows Dec 2011 #32

Checks and balances. Robb Dec 2011 #34

Congress is the pack of idiots that came up with this horribly worded nightmare Aerows Dec 2011 #35

The executive branch, and the court. Robb Dec 2011 #37

The executive branch is the front line Aerows Dec 2011 #38

Yeah human rights are nothing to get outraged over SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #29

at least you comprehend that it only applies to foreigners. Some can't even understand that. MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #47

Except it doesn't.. the amendment failed... SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #48

Non-citizens are human beings and deserve to have their human rights respected. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #2

^this n/t LadyHawkAZ Dec 2011 #3

Human rights defined by whom? Freddie Stubbs Dec 2011 #6

The answer is obvious: as defined by the "Commander in Chief", the military's Highest Power. ThomWV Dec 2011 #10

Washington, Jefferson, Franklin... Capitalocracy Dec 2011 #11

The UN Declaration of Human Rights. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #16

Yes indeed. Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #28

Oh gee, the Constitution, The UN, SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #30

+1 Warren Stupidity Dec 2011 #17

Rights exist because we do, not because government grants them to us. RC Dec 2011 #19

Yes! SammyWinstonJack Dec 2011 #21

Two concerns: The Doctor. Dec 2011 #4

Not to mention the fact that it MANDATES detention of non-citizens, but ALLOWS detention of citizens Capitalocracy Dec 2011 #7

The bill gives the President the discretion to do the same to U.S. citizens Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #5

I don't see how thats possible with this language. phleshdef Dec 2011 #9

From the ACLU... Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #13

But that language is in 1031. Robb Dec 2011 #14

Yes, but 1302 addresses presidential powers under AUMF Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #27

The Fourth Circuit's Padilla ruling did not overturn the Supreme Court. Robb Dec 2011 #33

Padilla was kicked back to the Circuit on a technicality. His case has never been decided by the Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #40

You understand Hamdi was a US citizen, right? Robb Dec 2011 #41

Captured in Afghanistan in battle and the SC decision rested on his circumstances Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #42

No, where Hamdi was captured wasn't relevant. Robb Dec 2011 #45

The ACLU is apparently ignoring the fact that existing law already covers that. phleshdef Dec 2011 #22

Currently, existing law does include indefinite detention. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #25

I consider it a matter put into question by things like the AUMF. phleshdef Dec 2011 #31

"Indefinite detention" is a part of "the law of war", always qualified by bhikkhu Dec 2011 #54

"Yes, let me explain it in words that even a 5-year-old can understand … Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #8

Unless the President decides DocMac Dec 2011 #12

So? People from other nations have rights too. Quantess Dec 2011 #18

we are bullies. nt abelenkpe Dec 2011 #20

I don't understand this bill. polly7 Dec 2011 #23

It gives the authority to detain people involved with the Taliban and Al-qaeda only bhikkhu Dec 2011 #50

Not an expert on Geneva by any means, but I'm pretty certain that coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #51

There is a whole set of procedures and controls - some listed in section 1036: bhikkhu Dec 2011 #52

1036 (a) looks to me to be a key element, as it requires coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #57

I think the main problem is the difficulty of seeing an endpoint bhikkhu Dec 2011 #58

Visitors to the US, that part. Its kind of a dickmove to shitcan their human rights. Erose999 Dec 2011 #24

Habeus corpus and the right to a speedy trial are soooo....1787. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #26

What part of NO ONE should face indefinite detention without a trial don't YOU understand? Matariki Dec 2011 #36

We need better people in Congress Aerows Dec 2011 #39

What part of "human" don't you understand? MedleyMisty Dec 2011 #43

Non-citizens are still human beings. proud2BlibKansan Dec 2011 #44

Yup. Hell Hath No Fury Dec 2011 #46

No authority is given, unless the person is supporting the Taliban or Al-qaeda bhikkhu Dec 2011 #49

Stupid argument Spider Jerusalem Dec 2011 #53

And what part of this violates both NATIONAL nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #55

Oh, I see! If it only happens to dem furrin brown people, it's A-OK!!! backscatter712 Dec 2011 #56

I understand that my non-citizen relatives will no longer have rights if they visited and were Pachamama Dec 2011 #59