by BigTex » Sat 24 May 2008, 17:45:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kingcoal', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ould Main Core in fact be legal? According to constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who served as associate deputy attorney general under Ronald Reagan, the question of legality is murky: "In the event of a national emergency, the executive branch simply assumes these powers"—the powers to collect domestic intelligence and draw up detention lists, for example—"if Congress doesn't explicitly prohibit it. It's really up to Congress to put these things to rest, and Congress has not done so." Fein adds that it is virtually impossible to contest the legality of these kinds of data collection and spy programs in court "when there are no criminal prosecutions and [there is] no notice to persons on the president's 'enemies list.' That means if Congress remains invertebrate, the law will be whatever the president says it is—even in secret. He will be the judge on his own powers and invariably rule in his own favor."
What about the Judicial Branch? They are the ones who ultimately decide what is legal and what is not. The Constitution does not talk about "emergencies," it uses the term "invasion." Constitutional rights, including habeas corpus, can be suspended if the mainland is invaded. At that point, the US becomes a battlefield and the military is given the usual powers that they have on a battlefield, including the right to detain POWs.
The US has not been invaded in any rational sense and more importantly, in the sense of the writing of the Constitution. Government tries to expand their jurisdiction by calling everything a war, i.e.; "war on drugs," war on this, war on that. I think for that reason, our founding fathers were careful in their wording.
Read up on what happened during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln was a decent fellow, but when push came to shove the Constitution didn't mean diddly to him.
Power is what settles all questions of rights. Ideally, power and the provisions of the Constitution are in alignment, but when they are not, don't kid yourself about which will prevail. The final arbiter of justice, morality, ethics and rights is power. There is only one seat at the table power sits at.
The Judicial branch is also only relevant to the extent that there are other agents of the government willing to carry out its orders. In a pissing match between the executive branch and the judicial branch, I would not expect the judicial branch to come out ahead (though through history occasionally it has).