Lawmaker offers 'modest bill' for detainees
One Congressman grows a set and stands up in the face of the Politics of Adolescents, and begins to behave as an adult.
As reported on Politico:
By REP. LOUIE GOHMERT
After reading through Boumediene v. Bush, I cannot help but feel that it is simply about the judiciary expanding its own power by usurping the clearly defined constitutional powers of Congress and the president. In essence, the Supreme Court ruled in this case that when Congress and the president followed the decisions the court itself made in crafting law regarding enemy combatants, they did not act within the bounds of our Constitution.
As Chief Justice Roberts noted in his dissent, “The DTA [Detainee Treatment Act] system of military tribunal hearings followed by Article III review looks a lot like the procedure Hamdi blessed. If nothing else, it is plain from the design of the DTA that Congress, the president and this nation’s military leaders have made a good faith effort to follow our precedent. The court, however, will not take ‘yes’ for an answer.”
When the Supreme Court makes a ruling, America listens. Congress believed that the Supreme Court would follow its own rulings and the precedents it set when it ruled in the 2004 Hamdi case, the 2006 Hamdan case, and the 1950 Eisentrager case.
In his dissent in Boumediene, Justice Antonin Scalia said the court's decision means the "[handling of] enemy prisoners in this war will ultimately lie with the branch that knows least about the national security concerns." If the high court is going to exceed its jurisdiction and endanger the American people, at least we can help it do a better job by seeing that it has a little skin in the game with some hands-on experience.
The Supreme Court clearly is exercising self-appointed war powers in order to micromanage the handling of international terrorists. By transporting all of the detainees to the court's grounds, my bill, H.R. 6615 — "To provide for the transport of the enemy combatants detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Washington, D.C., where the United States Supreme Court will be able to more effectively micromanage the detainees by holding them on the Supreme Court grounds, and for other purposes" — will give the justices plenty of opportunities to interact with these terrorists and therefore do a better job of supervision.
It is especially important for the court to closely observe the effects of its ruling, as Scalia pointed out in his dissent: “During the 1995 prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman, federal prosecutors gave the names of 200 unindicted co-conspirators to the Blind Sheik’s defense lawyers; that information was in the hands of Osama bin Laden within two weeks. … In another case, trial testimony revealed to the enemy that the United States had been monitoring their cellular network, whereupon they promptly stopped using it, enabling more of them to evade capture and continue their atrocities.” Scalia surmised that, “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the nation’s commander in chief will make war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional republic. But it is this court’s blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today.”
What a sad day it was for the rule of law when such important constitutional precedent was discarded. And what a sad day it is when Americans cannot rely on their Supreme Court to be consistent in upholding the rules it makes. As a former judge, I have a deep understanding of the role of precedent in creating certainty, stability and order. The purpose of my bill is simply to hold our high court responsible for its decisions, so that we may rely on some degree of certainty as we go forth in conducting the work of our nation. The court needs to understand that it does not make such inconsistent rulings in a harmless vacuum.
Rep. Louie Gohmert is a U.S. representative for Texas (R-Texas).
There was a time when most of our elected officials actually behaved as adults, and as a result built on what our framers started rather than destroying it. But somewhere along the way, selfish desires and an apatite for power corrupted the lot of them and even the perception of career politicians who are owned by lobbyists and special interest groups. Now, when an individual stands up and says something with meaning, we applaud them as being extraordinary. What a shame.
As reported on Politico:
By REP. LOUIE GOHMERT
After reading through Boumediene v. Bush, I cannot help but feel that it is simply about the judiciary expanding its own power by usurping the clearly defined constitutional powers of Congress and the president. In essence, the Supreme Court ruled in this case that when Congress and the president followed the decisions the court itself made in crafting law regarding enemy combatants, they did not act within the bounds of our Constitution.
As Chief Justice Roberts noted in his dissent, “The DTA [Detainee Treatment Act] system of military tribunal hearings followed by Article III review looks a lot like the procedure Hamdi blessed. If nothing else, it is plain from the design of the DTA that Congress, the president and this nation’s military leaders have made a good faith effort to follow our precedent. The court, however, will not take ‘yes’ for an answer.”
When the Supreme Court makes a ruling, America listens. Congress believed that the Supreme Court would follow its own rulings and the precedents it set when it ruled in the 2004 Hamdi case, the 2006 Hamdan case, and the 1950 Eisentrager case.
In his dissent in Boumediene, Justice Antonin Scalia said the court's decision means the "[handling of] enemy prisoners in this war will ultimately lie with the branch that knows least about the national security concerns." If the high court is going to exceed its jurisdiction and endanger the American people, at least we can help it do a better job by seeing that it has a little skin in the game with some hands-on experience.
The Supreme Court clearly is exercising self-appointed war powers in order to micromanage the handling of international terrorists. By transporting all of the detainees to the court's grounds, my bill, H.R. 6615 — "To provide for the transport of the enemy combatants detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Washington, D.C., where the United States Supreme Court will be able to more effectively micromanage the detainees by holding them on the Supreme Court grounds, and for other purposes" — will give the justices plenty of opportunities to interact with these terrorists and therefore do a better job of supervision.
It is especially important for the court to closely observe the effects of its ruling, as Scalia pointed out in his dissent: “During the 1995 prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman, federal prosecutors gave the names of 200 unindicted co-conspirators to the Blind Sheik’s defense lawyers; that information was in the hands of Osama bin Laden within two weeks. … In another case, trial testimony revealed to the enemy that the United States had been monitoring their cellular network, whereupon they promptly stopped using it, enabling more of them to evade capture and continue their atrocities.” Scalia surmised that, “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the nation’s commander in chief will make war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional republic. But it is this court’s blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today.”
What a sad day it was for the rule of law when such important constitutional precedent was discarded. And what a sad day it is when Americans cannot rely on their Supreme Court to be consistent in upholding the rules it makes. As a former judge, I have a deep understanding of the role of precedent in creating certainty, stability and order. The purpose of my bill is simply to hold our high court responsible for its decisions, so that we may rely on some degree of certainty as we go forth in conducting the work of our nation. The court needs to understand that it does not make such inconsistent rulings in a harmless vacuum.
Rep. Louie Gohmert is a U.S. representative for Texas (R-Texas).
There was a time when most of our elected officials actually behaved as adults, and as a result built on what our framers started rather than destroying it. But somewhere along the way, selfish desires and an apatite for power corrupted the lot of them and even the perception of career politicians who are owned by lobbyists and special interest groups. Now, when an individual stands up and says something with meaning, we applaud them as being extraordinary. What a shame.
Labels: American Patriot, Liberalism is the politics of adolescents, Politics
posted by Gary | 5:57 PM
<< Home