Anthony Kennedy has made his decision; now let him enforce it!
By gewcew23
@gewcew23 (8007)
United States
June 12, 2008 3:07pm CST
Today's infamous 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court granting terrorists the right to an O.J. trial in U.S. civilian courts cries out for the present Chief Executive to so paraphrase Old Hickory's similar defiance of John Marshall 176 years ago with respect to removal of the Cherokee from Georgia.
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
The nation survived President Andrew Jackson's defense of his constitutional executive powers against the first Judicial Oligarch. Should President Bush succumb to Justice Kennedy's attempted coup to assume the role of Commander in Chief, it will be much harder for our nation to survive, much less thrive, as it has since 1832. The people being held at Gitmo are illegal enemy combatants and have no right. General George Washington applied the war law that has always allowed illegal enemy combatants operating among civilian populations to be shot on site or summarily executed. Maybe that was our mistake we did not shoot them.
1 person likes this
2 responses
@lissavalerian (247)
• United States
12 Jun 08
This doesn't sound like a very libertarian position. Some of the people "rounded up" for Gitmo were not caught "on the field" - in fact, many many of the people at GITMO are ... believe it or not INNOCENT. Whatever happened until "innocent until proven guilty"?
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/so_who_else_is_at_gitmo.php
A CIA report had concluded in the summer of 2002 and the majority of Guantanamo detainees probably didn't deserve to be there.
Your attitude of "kill them all - let God sort them out" seems completely anti-libertarian. What ever happened to liberty? Or are we just about scooping up people, declaring them guilty just because of the country they happen to be in, and then summarily executing them?
http://www.lp.org/platform
"The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until provenguilty must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law."
2 people like this
@lissavalerian (247)
• United States
13 Jun 08
Liberty for us, but not for others?
2 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
12 Jun 08
I'm aware of Old Hickory's historical defiance of the Supreme Court. That will not work for President Bush. Too many want to impeach President Bush. Acting clearly in defiance of the constitution by ignoring the Supreme Court would get him booted out of office. President Bush would be impeached by the House and convicted in the Senate.
Shame on the Supreme Court, but it will take a new law to trump the Supreme Court. I don't know how the President can do it. I don't think an executive order could do it, though maybe it could.
1 person likes this
