Op-Ed: Dangerous overreach

The relativism of law and social logic will eventually allow detainees to sue our soldiers in the field. We have to use lawyers to make decisions on the battlefield as it is, in the future we will have to take soldiers off the battlefield and into the courts. No man or woman is going to volunteer for that. Liberal optimism and benevolence has never stopped a terrorist, it simply exposes our vulnerabilities. There needs to be a constitutional referendum limiting judicial interpretation and rescending this judgement.

I can't believe that the Supreme Court ignores the Constitution in this mater. With this ruling, they have violated the very Constitution they have sworn an oath to uphold. Amendment 6 of the US Constitution states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law..." I'd like to know in which federal district any of the enemy combatants held at Gitmo has committed their crimes and which district they will be face trial by jury? If they haven't committed a crime in any federal district, then they can't be charged in a federal court, as per the Constitution, so they can't have access to those courts. The only way an enemy combatant can access the federal courts is if the Supreme Court has defined the entire planet as one big federal district, which it has not. By allowing enemy combatants access to federal courts, the Supreme Court has negated the Constitutional requirement of charging the accused in the district in which the crime was committed. It's obvious that the Court is also ignoring the Constitution when it negates Congress's constitutional authority to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations" The terrorists held at Gitmo has committed "Offenses against the Law of Nations" as defined by Congress and is facing detainment at Gitmo as punishment for those crimes, as per their constitutional authority. Why is the Court ignoring this authority? The Court is now imposing its will upon Congress and the Administration in violation of the Constitution with this ruling. This is a treasonous act and those members of the Court that has agreed to subvert the Constitution should be impeached as punishment and as a further determent to any Judge who things that it's within their power to subvert and negate the Constitution.

It seems to me one of the major problems with the decision goes unmentioned. That is, the Court was prohibited by the Congress from hearing this case as the Congress has the Constitutional right to do under Article III, Section 2. The Court who is to interpret the Constitution has acted unconstitutionally to usurp the power of the Congress to limit the scope of the Court's jurisdiction. I seem to be the only person this bothers.

It seems that Mr. Cooper misses at least a couple of key points in his analysis: - There has never been a formal declaration of war in any of these cases. The United States is not facing insurrection. Now the invasion clause for suspending Habeas Corpus, that is arguable, but that is the Court's job -- to hear that argument and rule on it, which they have. - The ruling is way way more limited than Mr. Cooper or Mr. McCain seem to understand. There are a lot of enemy combatants at Gitmo. But our only assurance that they are all enemy combatants is the President's say-so, and any sort of proper open society would not be satisfied with that. This ruling does not close Guantanamo Bay, it does not free anybody, it does not even guarantee that Habeas Corpus hearings will take place. It merely states that the Government's authority to hold certain detainees can be questioned, if a federal court chooses to hear it. This ruling is not to help enemy combatants, but to help those who are NOT (and some of these people are US Citizens!), because the last six years, there has been no legal recourse for them, and military trials without sufficient legal counsel is simply not sufficient.

A "liberal majority", made up of two Clinton, one Ford and two Reagan nominees?