Strict Construction
The US Supreme Court will be hearing another Guantanamo Bay case in which the issue of habeas corpus and its suspension will be the focal point. We will see just how this court, packed by President Bush with conservatives, will deal with a right explicitly guaranteed by the US Constitution. Will this august body construe the Constitution strictly, as many have promised to do? This editorial in today's NY Times makes the case that it certainly should do so.
The fight over Guantánamo has been especially heated. The administration has made a variety of arguments for why the detainees have no habeas rights. Notably, it claimed that the naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, is outside the reach of American law. So far, the Supreme Court has rejected the administration’s arguments. It specifically ruled that the naval base is functionally part of the United States.
The issue today is whether, after the Supreme Court’s rulings, Congress succeeded in stripping the detainees of their habeas rights when it passed the Military Commissions Act. The act authorized military commissions to hear the detainees’ cases and set up a hollowed-out appeals process in the federal courts. At the same time, the act intended to strip the courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions filed by the detainees.
The Supreme Court should rule that the detainees still have the right to habeas review. The Constitution’s framers put strict limits on Congress’s power to tamper with habeas corpus. The suspension clause says it cannot be suspended “unless, when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” Since there was neither, Congress had no right to suspend habeas rights, much less take them away permanently. [Emphasis added]
Exactly.
The Military Commissions Act (which, by the way, many Democrats in Congress voted for) was simply the administration's attempt at a do-over after the last slap on the wrists by the Supreme Court. It was a canny way to circumvent the federal courts which had shown startling animosity to the White House's little plan to detain, convict, and execute any and all currently being held at the US base in Cuba. However, as the editorial pointed out, the framers of the Constitution anticipated such an egregious power grab and specifically forbade such a move except under the direst of circumstances.
It doesn't take any kind of imaginative leap to understand what the Constitution says. Neither the president nor the Congress can subvert what the framers considered to be basic human rights in a free society. Now let's see if the Court can see through the terra!terra!terra! muck coming from the government long enough to construe the Constitution properly.
The fight over Guantánamo has been especially heated. The administration has made a variety of arguments for why the detainees have no habeas rights. Notably, it claimed that the naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, is outside the reach of American law. So far, the Supreme Court has rejected the administration’s arguments. It specifically ruled that the naval base is functionally part of the United States.
The issue today is whether, after the Supreme Court’s rulings, Congress succeeded in stripping the detainees of their habeas rights when it passed the Military Commissions Act. The act authorized military commissions to hear the detainees’ cases and set up a hollowed-out appeals process in the federal courts. At the same time, the act intended to strip the courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions filed by the detainees.
The Supreme Court should rule that the detainees still have the right to habeas review. The Constitution’s framers put strict limits on Congress’s power to tamper with habeas corpus. The suspension clause says it cannot be suspended “unless, when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” Since there was neither, Congress had no right to suspend habeas rights, much less take them away permanently. [Emphasis added]
Exactly.
The Military Commissions Act (which, by the way, many Democrats in Congress voted for) was simply the administration's attempt at a do-over after the last slap on the wrists by the Supreme Court. It was a canny way to circumvent the federal courts which had shown startling animosity to the White House's little plan to detain, convict, and execute any and all currently being held at the US base in Cuba. However, as the editorial pointed out, the framers of the Constitution anticipated such an egregious power grab and specifically forbade such a move except under the direst of circumstances.
It doesn't take any kind of imaginative leap to understand what the Constitution says. Neither the president nor the Congress can subvert what the framers considered to be basic human rights in a free society. Now let's see if the Court can see through the terra!terra!terra! muck coming from the government long enough to construe the Constitution properly.
Labels: Guantanamo Bay, habeas corpus, Military Commissions Act
posted by Diane at 3:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home