Breaking: Gun right affirmed

[Emsworth]

The Supreme Court's decision in Heller is quite clearly correct. The opinion was generally very good, except for the parts that identified restrictions on handgun use and ownership that would be constitutional. These hypothetical restrictions were not before the Court in this case, and the Justices should not have commented on them.

The dissents, on the other hand, were almost painful to read. Particularly egregious is Justice Stevens' admonition: "[the decision] will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries." Pot calling the kettle black?

[Emsworth]

I disagree with their definition of milita. I interpret it as a literal militia...

What's there to disagree with? The Supreme Court interpreted the word "militia" to mean a "literal" militia as well. The point of the ruling is that although the prefaratory clause of the Second Amendment refers to "militia," the operative clause refers to "people," which is supposed to be a broader term; thus, the right to bear arms belongs to all the people, and not just to members of a select militia.

[Emsworth]

Anyone with good eyes/reading glasses and a good sense of logic can see that the President cannot suspend habeas corpus on anyone, since that power is only given to Congress during emergency situations.

I agree that only Congress may suspend the writ of habeas corpus, but the point is not nearly as obvious as you claim. The Constitution merely states that the writ may be suspended during certain emergencies; it does not say who shall suspend it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? The question presented in Boumediene was whether the writ of habeas corpus applies to aliens who are being held outside the sovereign territory of the United States.

Although, I am also talking about the XIVA Right to Contract, which was a major part of activism in the 20th century.

The liberty of contract doctrine, while clearly indefensible as a matter of constitutional interpretation, is no more unreasonable than the modern doctrines on abortion and "privacy."

[Emsworth]

And where does the Constitution grant the executive branch the power to hold military tribunals on foreign soil so as to avoid being subject to U.S. law?

Just because the military tribunals are unconstitutional, it does not follow that the writ of habeas corpus is the correct remedy.

[Emsworth]

But the president has no power to suspend it and the congress only has the power when the sh**t has hit the fan.

There is no need to suspend the writ if the writ wasn't even applicable in the first place.

[Emsworth]

Where in the Constitution says that the write is inapplicable is the prisoner is delibritely held in foreign soil.

The Constitution doesn't even define what a writ of habeas corpus is, let alone indicate the range of its applicability. Thus, it is necessary for one to resort to the common law. The precedents show that writs have been granted for the benefit of citizens or subjects held on foreign territory, or for the benefit of aliens held on domestic territory, but never for the benefit of aliens held in foreign territory. In fact, in over five hundred years of English and American legal history, there does not appear to be a single instance of a writ of habeas corpus issuing for the benefit of an alien held in foreign territory.

[Emsworth]

Where in the Constitution says that the write is inapplicable is the prisoner is delibritely held in foreign soil.

The Constitution doesn't even define what a writ of habeas corpus is, let alone indicate the range of its applicability. Thus, it is necessary for one to resort to the common law. The precedents show that writs have been granted for the benefit of citizens or subjects held on foreign territory being held in foreign territory, or for the benefit of aliens held on domestic territory, but never for the benefit of aliens held in foreign territory. In fact, in over five hundred years of English and American legal history, there does not appear to be a single instance of a writ of habeas corpus issuing for the benefit of an alien held in foreign territory.

Basic logic would show the ridiculousness of this. Don't try to play this both ways.

Then please use "basic logic" to demonstrate this supposed absurdity of my claim, instead of simply asserting your conclusion.

I am not saying that Justice Scalia and the other dissenters got it right in Boumediene. I'm merely saying that there is adequate justification for their position.

[Emsworth]

You say that foreigners on our soil have a right of habeas corpus, and you also say that citizens on foreign soil have a right of habeas corpus. Therefore both foreigners and people on foreign soil have a right of habeas corpus, meaning that it could not be denied to foreigners on foreign soil.

Unfortunately, the law doesn't work in such a straightforward manner. There is a consistent line of precedent that states that, even though foreigners on domestic soil and citizens on foreign soil may request habeas corpus, foreigners on foreign soil cannot. This might seem contradictory, and it might seem illogical. Indeed, if one were approaching the whole issue afresh, without considering any prior court decisions on the subject, then this is hardly the conclusion one would reach. However, previous courts have confronted the issue, and for five centuries their answer has been consistently the same. The doctrine of stare decisis compels, at the very least, respect for their decisions, if not complete adherence.