The Constitution to GWB and Co: “I’m Still Here.” - Alterman

[dArKeR]

Today we are indeed fortunate to feature Professor Eric Rauchway's analysis of yesterday’s SCOTUS decision: Take it away, Dr. R.:

I suspect Monday's package of Supreme Court decisions will become known collectively as the "habeas corpus cases," as I believe they're the most significant and sustained rulings on that writ since Milligan, possibly ever.  The bottom line is, the Supreme Court thinks habeas corpus is still pretty darned important -- which is good news for those of you who like freedom better than unfreedom -- and that it applies to pretty much every aspect of government behavior unless the Congress invokes the suspension clause of the Constitution -- which it hasn't, yet.  Breakdowns of the three major opinions follow; warning:  although I'm in the middle of reading about thirty-five books on legal history for a review essay, I am not a lawyer, so take this simply as the observations of a tolerably educated layman.

Shorter Hamdi:  
The President may or may not have the Constitutional power to bung you in jail; we're not going to address that question because Congress gave him the power to bung into jail people associated with the 9/11/01 attacks.  But even so, if he does that to you, you can sue.

Less short Hamdi:
The Court does not address the question of whether Article II grants the President an inherent power to designate and detain enemy combatants: 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/

[Tsiyu]

1. Love That Habeas Corpus

Ever since this "enemy combatant" lock-em-away-in-the-dungeon-and-throw-away-any-and-all-keys-and-rights crap I wondered where ole habeas was hidin' out. Glad to see the SCOTUS isn't gonna force us to rewrite all of our history books.