Does McCain Support Amending The Constitution To Overturn The Supreme Court’s Habeas Decision?
Does McCain Support Amending The Constitution To Overturn The Supreme Court’s Habeas Decision?
Last week, after the Supreme Court ruled that habeas corpus protections apply to detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) denounced it as “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” At a townhall in New Jersey, McCain railed against the “unaccountable judges” who made the decision.
On Sunday, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol suggested that McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) would soon introduce legislation to undermine the decision by creating national security courts. But Graham has also floated another option for blunting the decision:
The Court’s decision is bad on many levels and I will continue to review the decision and determine its sweeping effect on our military. I will also explore the possibility, if necessary, of a constitutional amendment to blunt the effect of this decision when it comes to protecting our men and women in the military and our nation as a whole.
According to the Boston Globe, Graham raised the constitutional amendment at a news conference with McCain last Friday and McCain “did not rule out that option“:
Graham, a close adviser to McCain on military and justice issues, said Thursday the Constitution might need to be amended to override the Supreme Court ruling. McCain did not rule out that option yesterday but said there are other avenues available, including drafting a new law to limit detainees’ access to federal courts.
Considering that McCain’s camp has made a concerted effort in the past three days to make the Supreme Court’s decision a central issue in the 2008 campaign, McCain should definitively answer the question: Would he support a Constitutional amendment to override the Supreme Court’s ruling in Boumediene v. Bush?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
At a townhall in New Jersey, McCain railed against the “unaccountable judges” who made the decision.
They’re supposed to be “unaccountable”. The system was designed like that by the Founders. “A free and independent judiciary” — what does McSame think that means?
Why does McSame hate America and what it stands for?
June 20th, 2008 at 1:28 pmG*dd*mn fascist pigs.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:32 pmas soon as they start amending the Constitution to make life easier for the national security crowd, we all might just as well take up arms, because they’re gonna kill us one way or the other, and we might as well go out with some shred of dignity…
June 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pmFASCIST PIGS
This is insane, the criminals are openly committing their crimes and MOST of the politicians are going along with this crap.
AmeriKa the once proud and honorable country being taken over by a hand full of NAZI’s is on it’s way to destruction.
Time for the West Coast to succeed from the Union.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pmWouldn’t these be the same ‘unelected judges’ who put the chymp in power in 2000?
June 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pmWhy does McSame hate America and what it stands for?
June 20th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
cuz dat shit just gits inna way of the real BIDNESS of Murka: World Domination (howsoever temporary)…
June 20th, 2008 at 1:47 pmYou all do, of course, realize that the ratification requirements of a Constitutional Amendment render this hog calling just that?
June 20th, 2008 at 1:47 pm“Shootdown” McCaine: traitor, chicken***t extraordinaire.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:48 pmAnd you DO realize that this hasn’t been America for a VERY long time?
June 20th, 2008 at 1:49 pmUnless there’s another “National Security Crisis,” that is…
June 20th, 2008 at 1:52 pmDoes anyone know what oldwhiteguywattle sells for>? I see an awful lot of it that could be sold off and proceeds donated to the poor.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:53 pmtokun ~ in that case, they wouldn’t amend it. Just shitcan it alltogether.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:54 pmIirc, the Constitution can be amended without popular vote of any kind, merely by passage of the amendments in various legislatures…nest paw?
June 20th, 2008 at 1:56 pmMPander Bear will “support” any idea that makes him look appealing to the people in the room. Different rooms and people elicit different responses. He would “support” the Boy Scouts nuking D.C, if he thought it might gain him a vote or contribution.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pmMaybe it’s time for the Second American Revolution…
June 20th, 2008 at 1:58 pmConsidering that McCain’s camp has made a concerted effort in the past three days to make the Supreme Court’s decision a central issue in the 2008 campaign, McCain should definitively answer the question: Would he support a Constitutional amendment to override the Supreme Court’s ruling in Boumediene v. Bush?
He has to wait to see which way the wind is blowing first.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 20th, 2008 at 1:58 pmI find it strange when they accuse the 5 judges of being ACTIVIST when they are just following the Rule of Law.
I thought you were an Activist judge, when you DIDN’t follow the Rule of Law.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:01 pmI will also explore the possibility, if necessary, of a constitutional amendment to blunt the effect of this decision when it comes to protecting our men and women in the military and our nation as a whole.
WTF does habeas corpus have to do with that? Are they saying we’re less safe if we allow prisoners to ask “what the hell am I in for?”
June 20th, 2008 at 2:04 pm.
… Because Habeas Corpus is soooooooo pre 9/11… NO?
.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:05 pm.
Hitler had National Security Courts, too.
And his were Private…
Is Rover jealous much…?
.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:07 pmI thought you were an Activist judge, when you DIDN’t follow the Rule of Law.
As Pelosi, Hoyer, and the gutless dems demonstrated today, the rule of law is irrelevant. It’s for suckers.
Just ask Bush and Cheney.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:08 pmamend the constitution to remove habeus corpus, which is written into the constitution??? THIS IS CRAZY!!! what the hell is wrong with these people? they’ve let 9/11 tear apart the fabric of the basis of what makes us FREE. remember when they were all talking about freedom?? we want to keep our freedom too! ARGH@@!!#$#%*^
June 20th, 2008 at 2:09 pmthe Constitution can be amended without popular vote of any kind, merely by passage of the amendments in various legislatures…nest paw?
Yeah, but find me 2/3 of the states whose legislatures will pass this??
June 20th, 2008 at 2:09 pmpete Says:
MPander Bear will “support” any idea that makes him look appealing to the people in the room. Different rooms and people elicit different responses. He would “support” the Boy Scouts nuking D.C, if he thought it might gain him a vote or contribution.
Fear. Vote for me and I’ll protect you.
Why do those that need their daddy figure to lead and protect them always complain the most about us turning into a nanny-state?
June 20th, 2008 at 2:10 pmrogersoevasive
June 20th, 2008 at 2:10 pmThe other case isn’t in question here, just the writ of habeus corpus.
If you can’t stay on topic, we’ll have to take your crayons away.
I’d love to see McIIIrd and his jackass Lindseed buttbuddy try to get this through Congress next year. That’s be a real fun thing for the Dems to shred their asses with.
Senators McIIIrd, GrahamCracker, here are your asses. Thanks for the entertainment!
June 20th, 2008 at 2:12 pm.
R E M E M B E R:
THEY(sic) HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS…
… And so THEY(sic) seek to legislate away theose FREEDOMS.
.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:14 pmTHIS is exactly one of the reasons I left the field of policing after George Bush became President. McCain, like Dumbya, feels that our rights are given to us by the government, so they can be taken away by the government. He has NO understanding of the Constitution. The fact is, our rights are granted by our creator (whatever “creator” means to you personally), and the Constitution merely places restrictions on the government and sets limits on their ability to infringe upon those rights. They are not “given” to us. We are born with them. This man’s upside down view of “inalienable” rights is VERY dangerous.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:16 pmRepublicans want a Constitutional amendment for the simple reason that what they want to do is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
June 20th, 2008 at 2:16 pmI’m leaving for Haiti in the morning. I need to find out how to resurrect the founding fathers and make them zombies so they can kick the shit out of these repukes.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:18 pmLindsay thinks habeus corpus is latin for ‘fried squirrel’
June 20th, 2008 at 2:19 pmGreat, it can go right after the amendment banning gay marriage. What amendment number is that?
Who has taken away more rights and freedom in this country, Terrorists or Government? Hell, who’s killed more citizens? Terrorised by our own government. TJ foresaw this very situation.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:21 pmOnly one amendment to the Constitution has been passed in order to restrict rights. That would be the 18th amendment which prohibited alcohol. How did that work out?
June 20th, 2008 at 2:24 pmrogerse Says:
I think tp is really about sensantionism, again…a constitutional ammendment was NOT proposed by mccain, and merely floated as a suggestion by graham… but this is not realistic at all, and mccain never hinted at it,
Kristol, the Republican media tool, says McCain will introduce legislation to that effect, even though he knows it has already been ruled unconstitutional. Do you think McCain is just stupid, or do you think he will push for an amendment to support his unconstitutional legislation?
June 20th, 2008 at 2:28 pmLet’s see, amending the constitution to take away civil liberties. . . closest precedent I can come up with is Prohibition. That turned out well, didn’t it? Problem with surrendering a fundamental right like habeas — or guaranteed access to the courts in general which is what they are heading towards — is that you have no way of getting them back after you realize your mistake. I would be frightened if I thought McNutzi had a serious chance of getting elected. As it is I can’t wait to see how soon after the Obama nomination you have the first R office holder complaining about abuse of power by the White House (my guess is it will be Boehner and before the end of January — Faux “News” of course will be complaining before the sun goes down on inauguration day).
June 20th, 2008 at 2:31 pm.
Once again…
rogerse can’t, won’t, doesn’t read.
He just types away like monkeys writing Shakespeare.
.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:32 pmIt’s okay; he’s eaten most of them anyway.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:32 pmLindsay thinks habeus corpus is latin for ‘fried squirrel’
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
June 20th, 2008 at 2:34 pmAnd after the founding father zombies stomp the crap out of McIIIrd and Lindseed, I’m sending them after Rogersyntaxedjumekated
June 20th, 2008 at 2:36 pmIn the mean time, McCain and friends will just regurgitate the “worse than Dred Scott” and “30 recidivist detainees” talking points.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pmGetting a Constitutional amendment ratified is an extremely difficult process. Remember the ERA? Also, this idea that the decision hurts Americans and those serving in the military is so wrong. The Geneva Conventions serve to keep all parties from torture because it is inhumane. With Bush and his gang of thieves torturing our enemies, the possibility where any U.S. military taken hostage will definitely be tortured is now a probability and most likely will happen. The fact that the U.S. didn’t torture did keep U.S. prisoners from being tortured in many instances–not in all; but, most. Now, that assurance is gone.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:41 pmrogerse Says:
national security courts,
Uh, roger, we already have federal courts. Why are you for bigger government?
June 20th, 2008 at 2:49 pmOh, please, please, pretty please, let McCain put forth a Constitutional amendment calling for the removal of habeas corpus. This will serve to reteach to those who don’t remember (or never knew) what habeas corpus is. Then, I’ll sit by (after my loud protestations in the streets where I live) and watch the reactions of those who suddenly realize that McCain is not just your ordinary fascist, but one of monumental proportion.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:55 pmshoeless, my guess is because this government won’t do what he wants.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:56 pmAwwww, Rogerse, you’re such a *cute* little doggie!!!
Hey!! No chewing the slippers, boy!
BAD DOG!! BAD!!
June 20th, 2008 at 3:07 pmRoger doesnt know what hes for,or against he just parrots whatever the talking point du jour is. Shameless serf.
June 20th, 2008 at 3:09 pmCrap, McLoser – why don’t you and Senator Liberace take up shuffleboard, eh, and quit flucking around with our Constitution…?
June 20th, 2008 at 3:09 pmThe enemy hates our freedoms, yet here we have men who want to remove our freedoms, do they also hate our freedoms?
June 20th, 2008 at 3:15 pmNo, John, the worst decision the Supremes ever made was giving W the Presidency.
June 20th, 2008 at 3:24 pmRog- while we’re on the subject of sensationalism, what about Newt, Nino and the other GOP windbag fearmongers who say allowing GitMo prisoners to have actual trials in court will cause us to “lose a city”?
June 20th, 2008 at 3:31 pmMove along people. No sensationalism here.
Look over there at that shiny object.
upside99 Says:
I find it strange when they accuse the 5 judges of being ACTIVIST when they are just following the Rule of Law.
I thought you were an Activist judge, when you DIDN’t follow the Rule of Law.
You are an “activist” judge if you rule in a way that the neoCONs think is wrong. The true “activist” judges on the SCOTUS are the judges who rule based on their religious beliefs and we all know who they are.
June 20th, 2008 at 3:34 pmWhy is it this criminal thug administration is allowed to hide behind the skirt of Pelosi and other traitor democrats?
Money?
blackmail?
payoffs?
special interest?
Get rid of Pelosi? From what I have heard on SF KGO radio, but can not find this data, 80% in her district of SF are in favor of her.
We have the most unpopular and criminal administration in history and yet the Dems that were going to drain the swamp DO NOTHING.
June 20th, 2008 at 3:34 pmThe three senators rejected Obama’s attempts to link their positions on Guantanamo to Bush. They said their support for a 2006 law setting up the special military system on Guantanamo was an attempt to “find the right balance” between Bush’s security-first policy and the rule of law.
Translation: Bush’s security-first policy is not within the rule of law. Why does there need to be a “balance” found between them? You don’t “balance” right and wrong.
June 20th, 2008 at 3:44 pmMore than wondering whether McCain would support an amendment is the question “Just what would the amendment say?” In other words, precisely how would he (or his Palmetto buddy) limit our rights? What “collateral damage” would there be? Put the son of a bugger squarely on the spot…..
June 20th, 2008 at 4:23 pmThe battle we must win if America is to survive as a nation of laws not men. http://www.tagg-theangrygayguy.com
June 20th, 2008 at 4:51 pmA bill passed by Congress and signed by a President cannot negate either the Constitution or a signed Treaty such as the Geneva Conventions. That means the only route available is a Constituional Amendment that would go against 500 years of International law. Let McCain run on that one.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:50 pmUh, Dallas, I think McCain is running on that one.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:59 pmSince a constitutional amendment requires ratification by the states, I really doubt that we’ll see a constitutional amendment destroying habeas corpus anytime soon, if ever.
Remember, all fifty state governors, both Republicans and Democrats, sent a protest letter to the Bush administration and the Repubican-controlled Congress expressing their outrage over BushCo demanding the right to federalize the national guard units of all states in cases of emergency, as declared and defined by El Presidente Bush. BushCo and the Republican-controlled Congress didn’t listen, of course, and now Bush can arbitrarily declare an emergency and seize control of a state’s national guard units over the objections of that state’s governor. (This was done in response to Gov. Blanco of Louisiana refusing to give into BushCo demands during Hurricane Katrina that she turn control of her state’s national guard units over to them. Which I believe was actually an attempt by BushCo to bypass Louisiana’s national guard units, forcing them to stand down, so as to give some work to Blackwater. Privatize. Privatize. Privatize. Remember?).
June 21st, 2008 at 10:49 pm