Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America by Mark R. Levin

Author:Mark R. Levin [Levin, Mark R.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Political Science, Political Ideologies, Conservatism & Liberalism
ISBN: 9781596980327
Google: kAKGCgAAQBAJ
Publisher: SimonSchuster
Published: 2006-09-25T20:30:33+00:00

Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was eventually challenged by John Merryman, a secessionist and citizen of Maryland. The case reached the Supreme Court, where the chief justice was Roger B. Taney (author of the 1856 Dred Scott decision upholding slavery). In Ex parte Merryman, Taney, writing for the Court, held that only Congress could suspend the writ of habeas corpus.46 Lincoln ignored the opinion. In 1863, Congress passed a statute authorizing Lincoln to suspend the writ.47

Obviously, President Bush hasn’t imprisoned or exiled members of Congress or state legislators who oppose his handling of the war on terrorism. Indeed, he hasn’t taken any actions to silence his critics. The Bush administration has detained only two U.S. citizens, and then only for overt acts of war.48

On February 19, 1942, during World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, which directed military commanders to designate areas “from which any or all persons may be excluded.”49 While the order didn’t apply specifically to a particular ethnic group, its effect was clear. Tens of thousands of Japanese Americans and Americans of Japanese ancestry were systematically removed from their homes in western coastal regions and forced into internment camps—not because of any evidence of criminal or disloyal behavior, but because of their race.

The president has not issued an edict rounding up, say, law-abiding Islamic and Arab Americans, or Americans of Arab ancestry, forcing them into guarded camps where the government could watch over them. In fact, the administration is loath to give special scrutiny to aliens who travel to the United States even from countries known to harbor or tolerate terrorists, including the home countries of the September 11, 2001, terrorists. For the Supreme Court to intervene in the Hamdi and Rasul cases, and use them as vehicles to usurp the commander in chief’s role despite the president’s restraint, is indefensible as a matter of law and policy. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling, in July 2004, the detainees at Guantanamo Bay were informed they could use American courts “to contest their detention.”50

It is difficult to win a war when the enemy is armed not only with rifles and rocket propelled grenades, but also with subpoenas, affidavits, and lawyers. And it’s difficult to maintain a republic when the judiciary abuses its constitutional authority. These cases illustrate perhaps more than any others just how dangerous and reckless an unbridled judiciary can be, not only to the Constitution, but to our national security.51

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.