Skip to comments.Mukasey: Obama broke unconstitutional law with Bergdahl swap
Posted on 06/08/2014 8:09:52 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey said Sunday that President Obama broke a flawed law with the release of five Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
Obama signed a law last year that requires the president to give Congress a 30-day notice before freeing prisoners from the military detention facility.
He broke the law, but I believe that the law itself is unconstitutional, Mukasey said on Fox News Sunday. Article II [of the U.S. Constitution] makes him the commander in chief of the armed forces. These people were in the custody of the armed forces.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Using that logic every law on the books is un-Constitutional.
Glad this moron is now interpreting our laws.
No, we have a different moron interpreting our laws in the Department of Just Us.
Is the law that makes it illegal to pay ransoms with taxpayer money to terrorist organizations also “unconstitutional”?
Obozo is trying to pretend that this was just a “prisoner exchange” but the facts are coming out that this was a monetary exchange.
But then we have a dictator instead of a president, so it won’t matter at all.
Obozo could order a nuclear strike against New York City and he’d still have a 60% approval rating with the survivors.
From what I know of the law, I actually agree with former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey that it is an unconstitutional limit on the chief executive’s legitimate military powers. However, President Obama did sign it into law.
Certainly the ones that limit presidential pardon power.
But, this issue isn't one of "breaking the law." It is one of sound judgment, and Obama lacks that.
A law against paying bribes to terrorists seems constitutional to me, as Congress gets to determine how money is spent. If President Obama bribed the terrorists, that seems like an impeachable offense. Of course, nothing contrary to this regime is going to make it through Senator Reid. Impeachment is, unfortunately, not an option.
Not even close. A military detention facility is in place and run under the UCMJ. The military has congressional authority to discipline itself and that includes those in captivity. The CIC has the authority to command the forces as in he has the final say as to purpose and mission of the military, not how we discipline ourselves or those whom we take prisoner.
Political prisoners are another story since they are held at the convenience of the CIC, such as Noriega. But POWs and captives are held for military reasons, outside of the scope of the CIC.
There is no actual proof of this yet but the circumstantial evidence for it is overwhelming. I think the truth of this conjecture will come out and will show that money did change hands. If so, it will be yet another nail in the Obama Administration coffin.
So... why did Barry-O sign an unconstitutional law?
“But POWs and captives are held for military reasons, outside of the scope of the CIC.”
You may be right, but that seems like a contradictory statement to me. How can one be the commander in chief (CIC) and not have command authority over the “military reasons” for holding captives? Isn’t that an unconstitutional limit on the president’s authority to command?
I wish I could claim it was original ... but it wouldn’t surprise me if it was a FReeper that coined the phrase.
Article II [of the U.S. Constitution] makes him the commander in chief of the armed forces.”
Ah, “If the President does it, it’s not illegal.” I’ve heard that one before.
But the law does not prevent the exercise of CIC powers - it does not prohibit the release; it is a notification requirement. Could it not be equally Constitutionally valid that Congress, in exercising its Constitutional oversight responsibilities, requires sufficient notification to perform that Constitutional function? There is a balance of powers and the Commander In Chief does not exempt the President from that balance. He is not supposed to be a military dictator.
Obama's supporters and enablers are coming up with some weird reasoning. I wonder if what Obama is doing is deliberately alienating all but his inner circle so he can do what he darn well pleases as long as that small group are okay with it.
Government Quotes, by Louis D. Brandeis , Source: part of his dissent in the case "Olmstead v. United States", 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)
The word “unconstitutional” is being bandied about quite often these days but that is all that happens.
No one dares to take the appropriate legal response.
Then hopefully he will send another strike.