As you noticed, the Constitution was never intended to be a substitute for the U.S. Code of federal laws. The Constitution explicitly enumerated the Power of the legislature, Congress, to define the rules, laws, and punishments for a variety of offenses which involved thee uArticle. I. Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power...To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on
the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;...To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof..... The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases or Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Article. II. Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;.... se of military force.
The above wording in the Constitution was based upon in part the laws of war and peace and the law of nations, most of which was more customary law than it was any form of legal code at the time the Constitution was adopted. This is why Article I, Section 8 enumerated the Power of Congress to elaborate on such rules, laws, and punishments. The authors of the Constitution in particular were well acquainted with the laws regarding piracy, brigandage, and engaging in war without authorization and commission by a sovereign. In the time of the Romans and earlier to the 18th Century adoption of the Constitution, a pirate or brigand was subject to enslavement or immediate execution by anyone, military or civilian, at any time, peace or war. This was the basis upon which pirates could be hanged from the highest yardarm of a warship or merchant ship with or without a court naval or military tribunal of any kind.
For a variety of reasons, the legal profession has been making it more and more difficult to actually implement such draconian punishments upon pirates and brigands; whether or not such punishments can be regarded as good, bad, or indifferent. In doing so without reegard for the practical military and civil consequences, the legal profession has creeated a bizarre contradiction in terms in its own laws and their historical precedents. In much the same way as Liberals havee trid to eviscerate the Constitution by successive in fringements and abrogations without amendments, so too have the laws of war and law of nations been severely warped out the bounds of reeason. The con game being played with the conflation of treason with the other offensees not requiring the protections afforded to treason is yeet another of these circumventing tactics, like a con man attempting to distract the audience with magic tricks to hide the true aims of the confidence game.
“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
In the time honored tradition of classic despots, Hussein is unconstitutionally attainting American citizens.
I get what you are saying, but I still disagree. Even the Hamdi decision only speaks to detentions, not the legality of targeted killings of USCs. When even liberals are upset about these actions by Obama, then that should tell you something....it’s not just the “right wingers” who are questioning the legality of policy.