Supreme Court Usurps Power? Makes Treaty With Al Qaeda?

J.J. Jackson* | June 29, 2006

I don’t know if this surprises me at all. The court, despite two right of center appointees with originalist intents still is a very liberal court with 4 of the 9 justices being markedly liberal and one (Kenedy) apparently taking up Sandra Day O’Connors’ position of importance as the “swing vote”. Kennedy has always been a little chaotic in his rulings, never much worried about consistency, but now he seems to have moved decided left.

Today, the Supreme Court’s left wingers took it upon themselves to make terrorist members of Al Qaeda signatories to the Geneva Conventions despite the fact that:
1) they don’t have the authority to make treaties
2) Al Qaeda IS NOT a signatory to the Conventions
3) Al Qaeda refuses to abide by the rules of the convention (i.e. intentionally targeting civilians, refuse to wear uniforms, etc)

So basically now they are members of the treaty without believing in it or adhering to it.

There were reasons why the power to make treaties was not given to the courts. Apparently one of them is because judges don’t know much about concept stating “The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed be-cause its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. Pp. 49?72.” Well DUH! That is because you have to have agreed to and abide by the Geneva Conventions in order to be granted those rights!

You would think that someone in the black robes of a judge would understand that simple legal concept.

Justice Thomas in his descent apparently got Justice Stevens’ goat because in his opinion for the majority, Stevens spends endless footnotes citing his opinions and trying vainly to dismiss them. Sevens cannot hold a candle intellectually to Justice Thomas.

Justice Thomas properly notes:

it is clear that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain petitioner?s claims, see ante, at 1?11. The Court having concluded otherwise, it is appropriate to respond to the Court?s resolution of the merits of petitioner?s claims because its opinion openly flouts our well-established duty to respect the Executive?s judgment in matters of military operations and foreign affairs.

and properly derides the majority citing

As with the jurisdiction of military commissions, the procedure of such commissions ?has [not] been prescribed by statute,? but ?has been adapted in each instance to the need that called it forth.? Madsen, 343 U. S., at 347?348. Indeed, this Court has concluded that ?[i]n the absence of attempts by Congress to limit the President?s power, it appears that, as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, he may, in time of war, establish and prescribe the jurisdiction and procedure of military commissions.? Id., at 348. This conclusion is consistent with this Court?s understanding that military commissions are ?our common-law war courts.?

We’re two good Justices away from having a Supreme Court that actually upholds the law and the Constitution. I say two Justices because such would give the court 6 potential Constitutionalists (seeing as the true ability of Alito, Roberts, and two more appointees would take time to ascertain fully) which would mean even if one or two Justices would have to recuse themselves, there would still be a 5-3 or 4-3 majority to trump insanity such as that which we have witnessed today.

The Constitution in Exile : How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land

(Book)

Authors:Andrew P. Napolitano
Manufacturer:Nelson Current
Released:18 April, 2006

Men In Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America

(Book)

Authors:Mark R. Levin
Manufacturer:Regnery Publishing, Inc.
Released:07 February, 2005

Contributor's website: http://www.libertyreborn.com

Similar posts:

*Content posted by a user may not be completely written by that user. Content from another source is cited in either block quotes, with quotes or with a link to the original material. Content from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use. Each user is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or it's owner.