Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mukasey: Obama broke unconstitutional law with Bergdahl swap
Washington Post ^ | June 8, 2014 | By Josh Hicks

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 ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bergdahl; traitor

1 posted on 06/08/2014 8:09:52 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Using that logic every law on the books is un-Constitutional.


2 posted on 06/08/2014 8:11:13 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey

Glad this moron is now interpreting our laws.

3 posted on 06/08/2014 8:11:36 AM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

No, we have a different moron interpreting our laws in the Department of Just Us.


4 posted on 06/08/2014 8:13:28 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi or Atty General Holder, who brought more guns to Mexico?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

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.


5 posted on 06/08/2014 8:15:02 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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.


6 posted on 06/08/2014 8:16:25 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (America for Americans first!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
-- Using that logic every law on the books is un-Constitutional. --

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.

7 posted on 06/08/2014 8:18:14 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
Department of Just Us.

Love it!

8 posted on 06/08/2014 8:18:38 AM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

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.


9 posted on 06/08/2014 8:18:58 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (America for Americans first!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
that it is an unconstitutional limit on the chief executive’s legitimate military powers

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.

10 posted on 06/08/2014 8:20:40 AM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Obozo is trying to pretend that this was just a “prisoner exchange” but the facts are coming out that this was a monetary exchange.

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.

11 posted on 06/08/2014 8:21:36 AM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

So... why did Barry-O sign an unconstitutional law?


12 posted on 06/08/2014 8:24:02 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

“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?


13 posted on 06/08/2014 8:25:04 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (America for Americans first!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

I wish I could claim it was original ... but it wouldn’t surprise me if it was a FReeper that coined the phrase.


14 posted on 06/08/2014 8:26:19 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi or Atty General Holder, who brought more guns to Mexico?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“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.


15 posted on 06/08/2014 8:29:39 AM PDT by jiggyboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

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.


16 posted on 06/08/2014 8:32:32 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi or Atty General Holder, who brought more guns to Mexico?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
The law is not unconstitutional until it's declared as such. Besides which, constituional lawyer Obama would not have signed a law he thought was unconstituional, would he?

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.

17 posted on 06/08/2014 8:33:15 AM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
 Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. ... If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

— Government Quotes, by Louis D. Brandeis , Source: part of his dissent in the case "Olmstead v. United States", 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)

18 posted on 06/08/2014 8:39:08 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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.


19 posted on 06/08/2014 8:48:00 AM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Then hopefully he will send another strike.


20 posted on 06/08/2014 8:49:59 AM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG

Let’s get Holder and MSNBC in on this and make it unanimous.


21 posted on 06/08/2014 8:52:28 AM PDT by morphing libertarian ( On to impeachment and removal (IRS, Taliban, Fast and furious, VA, Benghazi)!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Obozo could order a nuclear strike against New York City

Would we be able to tell?
22 posted on 06/08/2014 8:55:22 AM PDT by Delta Dawn (Fluent in two languages: English and cursive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
Isn’t that an unconstitutional limit on the president’s authority to command?

Not really. The CIC has the authority to direct what the military can do as in policy, but to tell the military how to do it is outside of his scope with the exception of collateral damage. The treatment of captives is governed by the UCMJ and Geneva Conventions. The monkey in the wrench to all of this is that those in captivity since 9/11 are not protected by the GC because they were not in uniform. This is why there is the argument to handle their cases in civil court. By right, we could have shot them all and been within the authority of the GC.

23 posted on 06/08/2014 9:01:02 AM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Delta Dawn

Not so much in the election. Dead or alive, Democrats manage to vote.


24 posted on 06/08/2014 9:05:44 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Mukasey: Obama broke unconstitutional law with Bergdahl swap

Umm yeah and the Reagan Administration broke an unconstitutional law that began the Iran-Contra scandal. So now that we have a precedent Congress knows exactly what to do. Shall we proceed accordingly Mr. Mukasey?

25 posted on 06/08/2014 9:08:28 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (My tagline is in the shop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

“If so, it will be yet another nail in the Obama Administration coffin.”

So what now? Impeach, have President Biden until the 2016 election and probably for two terms thereafter? What is your humble suggestion? BO can’t be reelcted anyway.


26 posted on 06/08/2014 9:09:30 AM PDT by 22202NOVA (<Insert pithy, sardonic comment here.>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 22202NOVA
What is your humble suggestion? BO can’t be reelcted anyway.

The Senate in 2014. The House, the Senate and the Presidency in 2016. I will take all the nails we can gather.

27 posted on 06/08/2014 9:12:05 AM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
NOW they care about a law being unconstitutional, when it suits them.
At most other times, the constitution is "just a piece of paper".

28 posted on 06/08/2014 9:36:45 AM PDT by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Hey Dude !

Obama broke a law that he himself signed.

Do you know what that means, dude ?

His signature is worthless.

His word is useless.

And the4 entire world knows this now.

His only successful ? negotiations in the future will be with terrorists.

No one else can trust him.

29 posted on 06/08/2014 9:47:56 AM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

“Could it not be equally Constitutionally valid that Congress, in exercising its Constitutional oversight responsibilities, requires sufficient notification to perform that Constitutional function?”

That’s a fair question. The president’s military power as commander in chief is clearly not absolute. Congress, for example, provides the funds.

Let’s say Congress buys the president a tank division. Does Congress have any say on how those tanks are subsequently used, and if so, how much say do they have? For example, they can withhold funds, but do they have a constitutional right to tell the president how those tanks must be operationally used?

There’s a gray area there, because you are literally talking about the dividing line in the constitutional balance of powers. Congress has largely abdicated its power to declare war, but once hostilities have started (i.e. a war is declared), the president has broad powers under the constitution to execute that war.

Either way, I don’t understand how a president can sign something into law and then argue that he’s not going to follow it as he deems it unconstitutional. That’s grounds for impeachment if you ask me (even though we know that’s virtually impossible in Obama’s case).


30 posted on 06/08/2014 10:38:41 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (America for Americans first!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Well, the weakest thing to do is to claim the President is disregarding the Constitution and then not impeaching him for it. The House has the sole power of impeachment. If they don’t exercise that power here, it is because they don’t really believe that the Constitution is being violated or because they see themselves as moral cowards and unworthy of their positions as Congressmen.


31 posted on 06/08/2014 10:45:15 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG

353FMG: “No one dares to take the appropriate legal response.”

Until such time that Senator Reid and the Democrats in the senate show a willingness to impeach, there’s no way Obama can be impeached. It’s not like members of Congress don’t talk to each other. They know what’s legislatively possible, and impeachment proceedings would be a useless gesture, much like the House’s votes to eliminate Obamacare. It won’t go any further, and the risk of antagonizing Democrat voters prior to the election is high. The best way to stop President Obama at this point is to win elections.


32 posted on 06/08/2014 10:46:01 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (America for Americans first!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

“The military has congressional authority to discipline itself and that includes those in captivity.”

Any authority or privileges utilized by any branch of the U.S. federal government is derived from the people and the States. The U.S. Constitution outlines a delegation of limited authority to the U.S. federal government from the God-given rights of the people and the States.

The UCMJ is controlled by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA is not effective until the President signs it into law or the Congress overrides a the President’s veto.

The people have unlimited, God-given rights (Ninth Amendment) and powers (Tenth Amendment). Congress has limited Constitutional authority derived from the people


33 posted on 06/08/2014 10:50:13 AM PDT by SvenMagnussen (1983 ... the year Obama became a naturalized U.S. citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

I agree the Guantanamo captives are correctly classified as unlawful combatants under the laws of war. That means they have very few rights and certainly no right to a civil trial.


34 posted on 06/08/2014 10:51:36 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (America for Americans first!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food; 353FMG

Read my post #32 to 353FMG. On principle, I suppose the House could schedule a weekly vote to impeach President Obama. That’s about how often he does something impeachable, but those impeachment votes won’t go anywhere. I’m not saying it’s bad to take a stand on principle, but the cost of taking such a stand could be very high and actually work against said principle in practice.


35 posted on 06/08/2014 11:00:29 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (America for Americans first!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

“Well, the weakest thing to do is to claim the President is disregarding the Constitution and then not impeaching him for it.”

The people have a right to a redress of grievances for violations of the U.S. Constitution in the The District Court (The First Amendment). The court interprets and the U.S. Constitution and not the Congress.

You cannot have the court order the President removed from office. But you can seek a declaration the President has violated the U.S. Constitution and an injunction against doing it again in the future. (And have the President pay your attorney’s fee and court costs.)


36 posted on 06/08/2014 11:01:36 AM PDT by SvenMagnussen (1983 ... the year Obama became a naturalized U.S. citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: maggief

The List?


37 posted on 06/08/2014 11:02:12 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
I'm not sure you understand the impeachment process. Senator Reid cannot impeach the President. It is the House of Representatives that has the sole power to impeach a President. When the House of Representatives impeaches the President, the Senate is required to hold a trial of the impeachment case.

If the GOP House is afraid to impeach the President, that's fine. But, in that case, they should quit claiming that the President is violating the Constitution because that implies an obligation to impeach in order to protect the Constitution. A Congressman should try to avoid looking like a coward if he/she can, don't you think?

38 posted on 06/08/2014 11:10:00 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
0bama has broken at least four laws with this swap.

Treason - aid and comfort to the enemy.

The 30 day Congressional notification NDAA H.R. 1960 Statute - taxpayer dollars were spent to remove these prisoners from Guantanamo Bay.

Then there is giving material assistance (human assets) to a non-state terrorist organization.

And fourth the U.S. Policy and Response to Terrorists which says that the US “will make no concessions to terrorists. It will not pay ransoms, release prisoners, change its policies or agree to other acts that might encourage additional terrorism.”

39 posted on 06/08/2014 11:22:00 AM PDT by TigersEye ("No man left behind" means something different to 0bama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Impeachment is a powerful word, one that most thinking presidents would have at least some fear of...not obama, he has a much more powerful word, that makes republicans shrink, shrivel and cower in fear...RACIST!
40 posted on 06/08/2014 11:23:45 AM PDT by PoloSec ( Believe the Gospel: how that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

I think I understand the impeachment process. The House votes to impeach. The Senate then holds a trial with only one possible outcome at this time—acquittal. It will be Clinton redux.

In regards to House members who claim the president is doing impeachable things but don’t start impeachment proceedings, I assume the Republican leadership is blocking impeachment at this time no matter what some House members want. Again, this doesn’t mean the House leadership is trying to protect Obama. They may simply believe it’s hopeless to impeach with the Senate (and subsequent trial) in Democrat hands.


41 posted on 06/08/2014 11:24:00 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (America for Americans first!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

‘Cuz he doesn’t know the frickin’ difference. He did not learn anything in law school just an AA promotee.


42 posted on 06/08/2014 12:20:24 PM PDT by bjorn14 (Woe to those who call good evil and evil good. Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: don-o
1. Health in danger

2. Previously consulted with congress

3. Swiftboating

4. It was an oversight, sorry

5. Platoon full of psychopaths

6. Taliban threated to kill

7. "What differences does it make?"

8. Stockholm Syndrome

9. PTSD

10. No evidence converted to Islam, fraternized with Taliban, and declared jihad

11. Physically abused, confined in cage

12. Racism

13. Moderate Taliban

14. “Raggedy" platoon

15. "No matter what, to leave an American behind in the hands of people who would torture him, cut of his head, do any number of things"

16. Obama broke unconstitutional law (that he signed)

43 posted on 06/08/2014 2:47:10 PM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson