Yesterday's Supreme Court Ruling

Some analysts [such as at the Washington Post (registration required)]are beginning to discuss the implications of the Supreme Court ruling yesterday regarding military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees, and the implications may stretch well beyond that issue.

The President justified his plan for military tribunals, as well as his NSA domestic spying and other plans, as "war measures" falling under his commander-in-chief powers that result from the 2001 authorization passed by Congress.

The Court rebuffed that thinking with its ruling.

Some Republicans are joining that thinking. Quoting from the Post:

Bruce Fein, an official in the Reagan administration, said the ruling restores balance in government. "What this decision says is, 'No, Mr. President, you can be bound by treaties and statutes,' " he said. " 'If you need to have these changed, you can go to Congress.' This idea of a coronated president instead of an inaugurated president has been dealt a sharp rebuke."

"There is a strain of legal reasoning in this administration that believes in a time of war the other two branches have a diminished role or no role," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who has resisted the administration's philosophy, said in an interview. "It's sincere, it's heartfelt, but after today, it's wrong."

Perhaps now the country will have the debate it should have, rather than accepting simple assertions by the Administration. The President may now have to go to the Congress and get legislative authority for his actions. That may spark that debate.

One caution, also from the Post article:

"The Bush administration has been very successful in defining the debate as one of patriotism or cowardice," said Andrew Rudalevige, author of "The New Imperial Presidency" and a Dickinson College professor. "And this is not about that. This is about whether in fighting the war we're true to our constitutional values."

We cannot allow ourselves, as people who stand up for the liberties our Constitution provides, to be painted into a corner by Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and other Bush supporters. Defending the Constitution is patriotic. So is opposing this President when his policies are detrimental to that Constitution.

GP