Breaking: Gun right affirmed

[SPC]

Funny how Scalia can be so constitutionally wrong one week (Gitmo) and be constitutionally right the next (gun rights).

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Curious. Did you read his opinion in each case; judiciously examine the historical materials; contrast his reasoning with various competing arguments; and then arrive at this conclusion? Or did you simply pick the result that strikes you as more intuitively just, and assume it must be correct? (There is admittedly middle ground, but few seem to occupy it.)

It doesn't take a rocker scientist to read the Constitution. Anyone with good eyes/reading glasses and a good sense of logic can see that the President cannot suspend habeas corpus on anyone, since that power is only given to Congress during emergency situations. It never says anywhere that it doesn't apply to foreigners. In addition, anyone can read that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, though one could argue that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government, keep in mind that DC is technically part of the federal government. What is the point of having a social contract if only one side of the contract can interpret it?

[SPC]

Anyone with good eyes/reading glasses and a good sense of logic can see that the President cannot suspend habeas corpus on anyone, since that power is only given to Congress during emergency situations.

I agree that only Congress may suspend the writ of habeas corpus, but the point is not nearly as obvious as you claim. The Constitution merely states that the writ may be suspended during certain emergencies; it does not say who shall suspend it.

Yes, but they said that the writ may be suspended during emergencies, such as when the courts are not working, in the part of the Constitution referring to Congress's powers, Article I. If the founders had intended that power to be delegated to another branch, they would have put it in Article II or Article III.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? The question presented in Boumediene was whether the writ of habeas corpus applies to aliens who are being held outside the sovereign territory of the United States. [/quote]

And where does the Constitution grant the executive branch the power to hold military tribunals on foreign soil so as to avoid being subject to U.S. law?

[SPC]

And where does the Constitution grant the executive branch the power to hold military tribunals on foreign soil so as to avoid being subject to U.S. law?

Just because the military tribunals are unconstitutional, it does not follow that the writ of habeas corpus is the correct remedy.

But the president has no power to suspend it and the congress only has the power when the sh**t has hit the fan.

[SPC]

But the president has no power to suspend it and the congress only has the power when the sh**t has hit the fan.

There is no need to suspend the writ if the writ wasn't even applicable in the first place.

Where in the Constitution says that the write is inapplicable is the prisoner is delibritely held in foreign soil.

[SPC]

Where in the Constitution says that the write is inapplicable is the prisoner is delibritely held in foreign soil.

The Constitution doesn't even define what a writ of habeas corpus is, let alone indicate the range of its applicability. Thus, it is necessary for one to resort to the common law. The precedents show that writs have been granted for the benefit of citizens or subjects held on foreign territory being held in foreign territory, or for the benefit of aliens held on domestic territory, but never for the benefit of aliens held in foreign territory. In fact, in over five hundred years of English and American legal history, there does not appear to be a single instance of a writ of habeas corpus issuing for the benefit of an alien held in foreign territory.

Basic logic would show the ridiculousness of this. Don't try to play this both ways.

[SPC]

Where in the Constitution says that the write is inapplicable is the prisoner is delibritely held in foreign soil.

The Constitution doesn't even define what a writ of habeas corpus is, let alone indicate the range of its applicability. Thus, it is necessary for one to resort to the common law. The precedents show that writs have been granted for the benefit of citizens or subjects held on foreign territory being held in foreign territory, or for the benefit of aliens held on domestic territory, but never for the benefit of aliens held in foreign territory. In fact, in over five hundred years of English and American legal history, there does not appear to be a single instance of a writ of habeas corpus issuing for the benefit of an alien held in foreign territory.

Basic logic would show the ridiculousness of this. Don't try to play this both ways.

Then please use "basic logic" to demonstrate this supposed absurdity of my claim, instead of simply asserting your conclusion.

I am not saying that Justice Scalia and the other dissenters got it right in Boumediene. I'm merely saying that there is adequate justification for their position.

You say that foreigners on our soil have a right of habeas corpus, and you also say that citizens on foreign soil have a right of habeas corpus. Therefore both foreigners and people on foreign soil have a right of habeas corpus, meaning that it could not be denied to foreigners on foreign soil.

[SPC]

You say that foreigners on our soil have a right of habeas corpus, and you also say that citizens on foreign soil have a right of habeas corpus. Therefore both foreigners and people on foreign soil have a right of habeas corpus, meaning that it could not be denied to foreigners on foreign soil.

Unfortunately, the law doesn't work in such a straightforward manner. There is a consistent line of precedent that states that, even though foreigners on domestic soil and citizens on foreign soil may request habeas corpus, foreigners on foreign soil cannot. This might seem contradictory, and it might seem illogical. Indeed, if one were approaching the whole issue afresh, without considering any prior court decisions on the subject, then this is hardly the conclusion one would reach. However, previous courts have confronted the issue, and for five centuries their answer has been consistently the same. The doctrine of stare decisis compels, at the very least, respect for their decisions, if not complete adherence.

Okay, but what right does the U.S. have to hold prisoners on foreign soil so as the prevent them from seeking habeas corpus?