Talk:Essay:Withdrawal of Jurisdiction Upheld

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

All the decision means is that we'll hear from them again. And Congress stripping habeas from the courts is just... frightening. Anyone who celebrates such a decision is not an American that the Founders would have enjoyed meeting.-AmesGyo! 19:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

It doesn't bother me, even slightly, that the Court's ability to hear cases involving foreign terrorists might be limited by Congress. That said, wWhen you wrote: "They were never American citizens, and were captured in foreign lands for suspected terrorist activity. They are called “enemy combatants” for that reason." Shouldn't these facts, at least, be verifiable by a court? Suppose, hypothetically, that that Bill Jones, 12th generation American, was snatched off the streets of Lubbock, Texas, held in federal custody in the U.S. and the government falsely maintained that he was in in Cuba, was a muslim terrorist, taken prisoner in a foreign country and not at all a citizen (if fact, an executive order could strip him of his citizenship, as if no court has the authority to hear a challenge to that order, what's to stop it?). Obviously that would be "BAD BEHAVIOR" by the executive branch and is therefore unlikely, but the upshot would seem to be that Mr. Jones's only remedy is to hope the Congress (another political branch) finds a way to check the Executive despite its veto. I have no idea what the law is on this point, but I think I am happier with the Court having some ability to prevent chicanery and massive screwups, at least as it relates to citizens...but, again, determining citizenship requires at least some minimal level of jurisdiction in all cases. Jesus Saves 17:11, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Personal tools