home
Cognitive Dissonance: The Constitution, Habeas, the Unitary Executive and Congressional Power | 8 comments (8 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

No, don't think that's conceivable (none / 0) (#7)
by Categorically Imperative on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 08:56:07 PM EST
All I meant to say was that there's no reason to think Congress, today, could not go further (if it so chose) and extend habeas beyond even the furthest territorial reach of constitutional habeas.  That is, Congress could conceivably grant habeas rights to POWs captured on the battlefield and held in overseas military prisons.  I don't think 1789 habeas reaches that far (though I do think it reaches to GTMO).  Congress would never do such a thing, but it could if it so chose.

In short, I read your original post to argue that there was something necessarily flawed, as a matter of legal logic, with assuming Congress could expand the territorial reach of habeas.  It's a nitpicky argument, for sure, but that's what I do best.

[ Parent ]

Cognitive Dissonance: The Constitution, Habeas, the Unitary Executive and Congressional Power | 8 comments (8 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft