PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
One of the warnings that we on the right issued prior to the election of President Obama was that he had limited experience, that he was untrained and untested, that an Obama presidency would be on-the-job training. This warning went unheeded.
The associated warning was that his political persuasion made him too weak to be the President of the United States at a time when we faced an intractable foe during an ongoing warÂ…Again, unheeded.
Case in point: “Obama’s civilian trials for terrorists…” Gitmo Detainee Cleared of All but One Charge - FoxNews.com.
Now, before our left wing colleagues go forward endorsing his half-steps and full-blown blunders, it might be instructive to compare this President with several who have actually been presidential.
1. Prior to his own presidency, General Andrew Jackson fought the Battle of New Orleans, during which he imposed martial law. One state legislator, Louis Louailler, attacked this decision in the newspapers. Jackson took this as incitement, and arrested Louailler. Supporters of Louailler went to US District Judge Dominick Hall, who issued a writ of habeas corpus.
a. “When the Constitution was adopted in 1787, it became part of our fundamental law, enshrined in Article I, Section 9: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” The writ, in short, is a time-honored bulwark against tyranny.”
b. Jackson had Judge Hall arrested, escorted several miles outside the city limits, and set free.
2. “Hall, being a jurist, had no responsibility for national security—a responsibility assigned by the Constitution to elected officials. The judge’s only duty was to ensure that any litigants properly before him were afforded due process. But Judge Hall was of a mind that he, not General Jackson, personified the rule of law—security or no security.”
a. Jackson had been correct that imposition of martial law had been his decision to make. As soon as the peace treaty (Treaty of Ghent) became known, he immediately reinstated civilian control.
The point: during the state of war, the courts are inadequate to the task of maintaining order.
3. Here is further vindication of JacksonÂ’s behavior, via Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for a unanimous Supreme Court in the case of Moyer v. Peabody:
‘When it comes to a decision by the head of the State upon a matter involving its life, the ordinary rights of individuals must yield to what he deems the necessities of the moment. Public danger warrants the substitution of executive process for judicial process.’
4. “President Lincoln, of course, suspended habeas corpus upon the outbreak of the Civil War. (Not as often mentioned is the fact that Congress—which was out of session at the time—later endorsed Lincoln’s action.) When Lincoln’s action was eventually brought before the Supreme Court, the issue was not whether habeas corpus could be suspended in case of rebellion—as we have seen, that is clearly provided for in the Constitution—but which elected branch of government could suspend it. Chief Justice Roger Taney concluded in the case of Ex parte Merryman that because the Suspension Clause is in Article I, it must have been understood as a power of Congress rather than the president—a reasonable interpretation, though hardly indisputable.”
a. Consider, of course the strength of Lincoln’s position in the light of the President’s obligation “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” the central purpose of government “to provide for the common defense.”
5. President Roosevelt grappled with similar challenges during World War II. In June 1942, when the outcome of the war was anything but clear, eight German saboteurs were captured after landing on the coasts of Long Island and Florida. They had been sent by Hitler to commit acts of terrorism against civilian infrastructure, and Roosevelt decided to make an example of them. He wasnÂ’t concerned with the fact that the federal courts were open and functioning. Nor was he swayed by the fact that one of the saboteurs was an American citizen. He directed that all eight of them be detained as enemy combatants and tried by a military commission. Nor did he perceive the need to festoon the proceedings with trappings of a martial setting: the trial took place in an FBI conference room in what is now the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building.
a. The saboteursÂ’ defense lawyers naturally cried foul, filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court and claiming that this military commission violated the Constitution. Upon hearing of the petition, Roosevelt summoned Attorney General Francis Biddle and directed him to tell the Chief Justice that he did not care what the Supreme Court thought; that the Constitution made him, not the justices, responsible for the lives of the American people and the successful prosecution of the war; and that he would not be releasing the prisoners, regardless of the CourtÂ’s disposition of the case.
6. How we have plummeted from Presidents who understood the constitutional mandate of the President, to one who masquerades as a ‘constitutional professor,’ yet insists that we should not adhere to the protocols that are the laws of war, and are older than the U.S. itself.
a. “ They include requiring combatants to wear uniforms, to carry their weapons openly, to be part of a regular armed force, and, most importantly, to refrain from intentionally targeting civilians. They also define wartime powers and privileges. Enemy combatants, for example, may be captured and detained until the conclusion of hostilities. Fighters who adhere to the laws of war are entitled to various protections upon capture. By contrast, fighters who flout the laws of war—such as non-uniformed terrorists who target civilians—are unlawful combatants and may be prosecuted by a military commission for war crimes.”
Quotations from the speech Andrew McCarthy, and can be found @ https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=03
The associated warning was that his political persuasion made him too weak to be the President of the United States at a time when we faced an intractable foe during an ongoing warÂ…Again, unheeded.
Case in point: “Obama’s civilian trials for terrorists…” Gitmo Detainee Cleared of All but One Charge - FoxNews.com.
Now, before our left wing colleagues go forward endorsing his half-steps and full-blown blunders, it might be instructive to compare this President with several who have actually been presidential.
1. Prior to his own presidency, General Andrew Jackson fought the Battle of New Orleans, during which he imposed martial law. One state legislator, Louis Louailler, attacked this decision in the newspapers. Jackson took this as incitement, and arrested Louailler. Supporters of Louailler went to US District Judge Dominick Hall, who issued a writ of habeas corpus.
a. “When the Constitution was adopted in 1787, it became part of our fundamental law, enshrined in Article I, Section 9: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” The writ, in short, is a time-honored bulwark against tyranny.”
b. Jackson had Judge Hall arrested, escorted several miles outside the city limits, and set free.
2. “Hall, being a jurist, had no responsibility for national security—a responsibility assigned by the Constitution to elected officials. The judge’s only duty was to ensure that any litigants properly before him were afforded due process. But Judge Hall was of a mind that he, not General Jackson, personified the rule of law—security or no security.”
a. Jackson had been correct that imposition of martial law had been his decision to make. As soon as the peace treaty (Treaty of Ghent) became known, he immediately reinstated civilian control.
The point: during the state of war, the courts are inadequate to the task of maintaining order.
3. Here is further vindication of JacksonÂ’s behavior, via Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for a unanimous Supreme Court in the case of Moyer v. Peabody:
‘When it comes to a decision by the head of the State upon a matter involving its life, the ordinary rights of individuals must yield to what he deems the necessities of the moment. Public danger warrants the substitution of executive process for judicial process.’
4. “President Lincoln, of course, suspended habeas corpus upon the outbreak of the Civil War. (Not as often mentioned is the fact that Congress—which was out of session at the time—later endorsed Lincoln’s action.) When Lincoln’s action was eventually brought before the Supreme Court, the issue was not whether habeas corpus could be suspended in case of rebellion—as we have seen, that is clearly provided for in the Constitution—but which elected branch of government could suspend it. Chief Justice Roger Taney concluded in the case of Ex parte Merryman that because the Suspension Clause is in Article I, it must have been understood as a power of Congress rather than the president—a reasonable interpretation, though hardly indisputable.”
a. Consider, of course the strength of Lincoln’s position in the light of the President’s obligation “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” the central purpose of government “to provide for the common defense.”
5. President Roosevelt grappled with similar challenges during World War II. In June 1942, when the outcome of the war was anything but clear, eight German saboteurs were captured after landing on the coasts of Long Island and Florida. They had been sent by Hitler to commit acts of terrorism against civilian infrastructure, and Roosevelt decided to make an example of them. He wasnÂ’t concerned with the fact that the federal courts were open and functioning. Nor was he swayed by the fact that one of the saboteurs was an American citizen. He directed that all eight of them be detained as enemy combatants and tried by a military commission. Nor did he perceive the need to festoon the proceedings with trappings of a martial setting: the trial took place in an FBI conference room in what is now the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building.
a. The saboteursÂ’ defense lawyers naturally cried foul, filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court and claiming that this military commission violated the Constitution. Upon hearing of the petition, Roosevelt summoned Attorney General Francis Biddle and directed him to tell the Chief Justice that he did not care what the Supreme Court thought; that the Constitution made him, not the justices, responsible for the lives of the American people and the successful prosecution of the war; and that he would not be releasing the prisoners, regardless of the CourtÂ’s disposition of the case.
6. How we have plummeted from Presidents who understood the constitutional mandate of the President, to one who masquerades as a ‘constitutional professor,’ yet insists that we should not adhere to the protocols that are the laws of war, and are older than the U.S. itself.
a. “ They include requiring combatants to wear uniforms, to carry their weapons openly, to be part of a regular armed force, and, most importantly, to refrain from intentionally targeting civilians. They also define wartime powers and privileges. Enemy combatants, for example, may be captured and detained until the conclusion of hostilities. Fighters who adhere to the laws of war are entitled to various protections upon capture. By contrast, fighters who flout the laws of war—such as non-uniformed terrorists who target civilians—are unlawful combatants and may be prosecuted by a military commission for war crimes.”
Quotations from the speech Andrew McCarthy, and can be found @ https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=03
