"Freiman emphasizes that Roberts joined this part of the opinion "without reservation." Moreover, Roberts and his colleagues bypassed the congressional habeas corpus statute. (The Founders made sure that the crucial right of a prisoner to challenge the lawfulness of his imprisonment is in the body of the Constitution.) "
If we did to the prisoner what we should have done according to the Geneva Convention, this would have been a moot point.
This prisoner deserved to be interrogated, then excecuted.
Nat Hentoff = commie RAT.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column: "Tide of Lies Swamps NY Times: Employees Riot and Steal Office Supplies"
"He points out that in the Hamdan decision, John Roberts disregarded "the plain text of the [Constitution's] Supremacy Clause . . . which unambiguously states: ' . . . all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.' "
"Moreover, Freiman warns us: "[Roberts's] willingness to erase the word 'Treaties' from our Constitution and laws might mark [him and his two colleagues] not just as jurists willin g to depart from the plain meaning of legal texts, but also as legal isolationists, turning away from the treaties that bind this nation to the civilized world." (Emphasis added)"
My understanding of the treaty provision of the Constitution is that it gives treaties the same validity as any Congressional law, which is considered the "supreme law of the land" as well. Treaties do not and can not, however, supersede any portion of the United States Constitution. (This is evident by the fact that, in the case of many treaties, Congress must pass statutes to bring the laws of the United States into conformance with provisions of a signed treaty - something that would be unnecessary if that treaty had more force than Congressional laws or the Constitution). If they could, then theoretically, we could assign the election of the President and members of Congress to, oh, say, the U.N. simply by signing a treaty that says so, could we not?
Wasn't he joined by 2 others in the Hamdam decision? Are all 3 of them radicals?
I can think of nothing I would rather see from the Supreme Court than to watch a series of multilateral treaties go down the Constitutional dumper. These are the bases of so many unconstitutional environmental regulations I wouldn't know where to start.
ANYTHING is better than what we have on the Supreme Court now. Scalia and Thomas excluded.
Okay. I am starting to get a lot less nervous about Roberts.