Gov Lawyers say Pres can have any citizen taken , held indefinately without charges

[Good Luck]

It should be plain common sense that the United States Constitution, written explicitly for citizens of the United States, does not apply to people who are not citizens of the United States. Only pinheaded liberals could possibly interpret such "rights" into the Constitution.

Wrong - only a pinhead thinks citizens are the only ones covered by constitutional protections. Look at the 14th Amendment. It specifically defines what comprises a citizen, and says a citizens rights and privileges (ie: right to vote, etc.) cannot be violated without due process. But it then goes on to use the word "person" instead of the word "citizen" when requiring due process to cover life, liberty and property. The use of the word person instead of citizen, when citizen has just been defined, is significant, and indicates non-citizens are also covered. People entered into the country illegally are the only ones who are not covered, because having entered illegally, they are not under jurisdiction of a state or this country's laws.

What some presidents have done in the past, means everything. It sets precedent and establishes the authority of the executive office and branch of our government. Presidential authority has been challenged time and time again, and it always wins. This is because the power given to the elected president is broad and all-encompassing.

Again, wrong.

The powers of the president are specifically delineated - what he can and cannot do is specifically outlined. And the 10th amendment seals the deal by saying any powers NOT delegated the federal government (which includes the list given the president) are reserved to the states or the people. NO WHERE in the Constitution does it say he has the authority to unilaterally remove the rights of a citizen - or anyone else - regardless of the cause. If the power is not delegated, the president does not have it. Period. The fact that others have violated their limitations does not "set precedent" that it is OK to do so, any more than a congress critter committing a crime sets precedent that criminal activity is OK for congress critters.

The President, and the President alone... not the CIA, not the FBI, not the State Department, has the authority to order ANY American citizen held, if he feels the person is a threat to the security of the nation, and furthermore, if said president should fail or neglect to order such a person held, and he did indeed perpetrate an attack on the nation, that president could (and probably would) be impeached for dereliction of duty.

That authority is not delegated, therefore he does not have that power. The reason for such limitations is to prevent a president from establishing a dictatorship. The powers you describe are the powers of a dictator.

I believe in our Constitution as much as anyone, but the function and purpose of the Constitution is not to protect those who seek to destroy the physical purpose and reason for the Constitution. Because of the potential dangers, time is sometimes of the essence, and court judgements, senate hearings, intelligence briefings, are not possible without grave risk to National Security, and in these instances, the President has executive authority to act based on his personal judgement alone. We grant him this power as our President, and it has nothing to do with the perfunctory Constitutional rights of citizens. Threat to National Security always trumps Individual Constitutional Rights, and it always will.

Not if I have anything to say about it. I spent 40 years of my life defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies - foreign AND DOMESTIC. Do you really think someone can take that oath for 40 years and not understand what it means? Citizen rights are ANYTHING but "perfunctory", and anyone who claims them to be "perfunctory" is potentially as much an enemy of the Constitution as any terrorist.

A domestic enemy of the Constitution, thus representing a threat to national security, is a serious matter. But we do NOT throw away the Constitution to defend against them. If they are a foreign resident, we can use military detainment, but we must have adequate proof to show the courts why the courts are being bypassed. (Which evidently did not happen in the case sited since the lower court ordered the guy returned to the criminal system.)

When it comes to a citizen, we have the obligation to our society, whose freedoms are based in and defended by our Constitution, to first PROVE via due process that theirs are the actions of treason - which is the only crime defined by the Constitution. Only AFTER due process has been satisfied to remove their status as citizens can we then proceed to treat them as enemy agents (or combatants, depending on the situation.)

 

[KingRaw!]

Thank you for the court transcript. I did not know that had actually been said. I still have difficulty believing it.The lawyer who said "yes, your honor" to the question whether U.S. citizens can be treated as enemy combatants without first going through due process to remove their rights as a citizen should be disbarred. And the justice who glossed the possibility under the excuse "we don't see citizens being rounded up" should be debenched and beaten behind the woodshed. (I have a hickory stick just the right size....)I DO have a serious problem with anyone other than genuinely suspected foreign enemy agents being subject to military (as opposed to criminal) arrest within the United States. As I said to Dixie, just because presidents have done unconstitutional things in the past under wartime conditions does not make it the right thing to do, nor condone doing it today under wartime conditions.I just have trouble believing a federal lawyer - or a federal judge - would even briefly entertain the notion that presidential war powers extends to violating the Constitution. That's why I doubted the word of an NBC report. The idea is ridiculous. Presidential war powers, as clarified by SCOTUS during the Civil War, is the power of the President, as commander in chief of the armed forces, to send those forces where he feels is necessary to national security without need for declaration of war from congress. (It's why congress could not force the president to withdraw from Viet Nam) NO OTHER POWERS have been granted, neither by the Constitution, nor by interpretation/decision by the courts.To suspend the Constitution or any part of it, legally, would require a full blown declaration of martial law. And the president that does that will have a full blown revolution on his hands even if the measure were reasonably justified.

What's so ridiculous about that? I love this countraaay!
USA!:

 

[KingRaw!]

And Nothing is more American than explosions!