Thursday, October 19, 2006

It's fun to stay at the...

...M-C-A! I tell you, Dear Reader, this stuff just writes itself.

You can read about the MCA of 2006 right here.

Of course, the MDM has whipped itself into a lather over the inevitable human rights abuses. **yawn** Oh, excuse me! What's that you say? Oh, that? That's mentally deranged media, something I think I lifted from the Michael Savage show.

It's funny that the Left is troubled by this. Remember how smug they were when Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was decided? Which, for the record, was one of the more ridiculous rulings in recent memory? This was the Court's desired response.

But for the Appeasement National Committee, no terrorist is safe until we're forced to provide 48 hours notice that we plan to attack them.

Memo to the Demos: the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Let's all just, shall we?


Sebosmile said...

Ha, cleeeeeeeeeeeeever wording! Made my night. ;)

The Monarchist said...

Hey Sebo,

Thanks for noticing. I'm reminded of Brad Pitt to Edward Norton: "How's that working out for you?"


The Monarchist said...

I meant to add this to the post, but here's the scary part:

If a majority of the Supreme Court ruled against the Administration in this decision, how misunderstood is the concept of balance in government (in this case, the separation of powers) in the United States in general?


Daniel Webster said...

"If a majority of the Supreme Court ruled against the Administration in this decision..."


In following the rules I generally prescribe (but don't always abide in strictly) for myself to "never assume nothin'," and at the risk of sounding rather ignorant, I have to ask...

What decision are you talking about? I'm assuming it's Hamden v. Rumsfeld. But there I go violating my own rules again. ;)

The Monarchist said...

Yes, indeed, DW, I was speaking of Hamdan - that was a bit unclear, my apologies.


Daniel Webster said...

Okay, good.

I'm gonna go back and re-read that decision, but I think there might be a slight disagreement here...which is OK, right? I mean, we can disagree on some things, right?


Daniel Webster said...

Yes; just as I thought...

Each dissenting opinion (Scalia's, Thomas's, and Alito's) seems to fall under one common, and overarching umbrella - jurisdiction of the court to hear the case. Of course I would agree that the court has/had no jurisdiction in this case. So your point concerning imbalance in the separation of powers is well taken in this particular instance.

However, the majority decision in this particular case also falls under an overarching theme - that the Executive branch is not currently authorized to conduct these trials Constitutionally, or it wasn't at the time that this decision came down.

While you and I, and the dissenters may find this to be odious to the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of the Executive in times of war, and while our interpretation may well be the case, the effectiveness of the decision rendered seems to be little more than asking the Executive branch to seek more explicit authorization from the Congress.

On this point, it seems to me that the separation principle is kept pretty well intact.

The court, in this case, seems to be going out of its way to recognize the Constitutional prescription of the Congress to legislate, and to clarify its own intent. While at the same time recognizing the authority of the Executive to execute the laws of the United States according to the intent of Congress. No?

The Monarchist said...

The question to my way of thinking was this: does (did) the President have the authority to convene military tribunals as he was, consistent with his duties as Commander-in-Chief?

Glad to be in the company of the dissenters, at any rate.


Daniel Webster said...

Fair enough.

And just between you, me, and the wall...

Me too!