(no subject)
Mar. 1st, 2005 03:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
novapsycheU.S. Must Charge Padilla With Crime or Release Him
[...] Using a phrase often levied by conservatives to denigrate liberal judges, Floyd -- who was appointed by President Bush to the federal bench in 2003 -- accused the administration of engaging in "judicial activism" when it asserted in court pleadings that Bush has blanket authority under the Constitution to detain Americans on U.S. soil who are suspected of taking or planning actions against the country.
Floyd said the government presented no law supporting this contention and that just because Bush and his appointees say Padilla's detention was consistent with U.S. laws and the president's war powers, that did not make it so. "Moreover, such a statement is deeply troubling. If such a position were ever adopted by the courts, it would totally eviscerate the limits placed on Presidential authority to protect the citizenry's individual liberties."
[...] One of Padilla's attorneys, Donna Newman, said the "court ruled that the president does not have the power to seize an American citizen on American soil and hold him indefinitely without a charge. That shouldn't be big news, but it is. . . . It confirms our belief that the Constitution is alive and well and kicking. The system works."
[...] Using a phrase often levied by conservatives to denigrate liberal judges, Floyd -- who was appointed by President Bush to the federal bench in 2003 -- accused the administration of engaging in "judicial activism" when it asserted in court pleadings that Bush has blanket authority under the Constitution to detain Americans on U.S. soil who are suspected of taking or planning actions against the country.
Floyd said the government presented no law supporting this contention and that just because Bush and his appointees say Padilla's detention was consistent with U.S. laws and the president's war powers, that did not make it so. "Moreover, such a statement is deeply troubling. If such a position were ever adopted by the courts, it would totally eviscerate the limits placed on Presidential authority to protect the citizenry's individual liberties."
[...] One of Padilla's attorneys, Donna Newman, said the "court ruled that the president does not have the power to seize an American citizen on American soil and hold him indefinitely without a charge. That shouldn't be big news, but it is. . . . It confirms our belief that the Constitution is alive and well and kicking. The system works."