 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
$user_title
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
Congress can suspend Habeas and backing up his actions ex post facto was against the law:
The fact that Congress (who you state is the branch that can suspend habeas) backed up his actions should not be dismissed.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. (source: U.S. Constitution Article I Section 9) Article one defines the powers of Congress:
Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. (source: U.S. Constitution).
I can't say I'm anywhere close to being a lawyer, but I'm not sure that this was a case of ex post facto law. Congress wasn't making law. They were simply giving their blessing to acts made by the President. To me, ex post facto means CHANGING the law after the fact. For example, say we make EVERY kind of performance enhancing drug illegal. We can't then go back and put Mark McGwire in jail because he used Andro, since Andro was legal at the time he played baseball.
Congress wasn't changing any laws. Suspension of habeas corpus was ALWAYS allowable. The biggest question was just who had the right to suspend it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto