Nutjob Watch: Redstate Edition

With the revelations of Bush's warrantless searches on Americans within the United States, I went to read redstate.org again to simply see what the people on that site thought about it.

There was the popular line that the president was doing what's necessary to stop terrorist attacks. Fine. Not a great argument, but rationalize as you please.

The post that got me going today was a longwinded attempt to show that Bush's actions were legal. I didn't read the whole thing--not really possible when you reach this level of stupidity.

Nonetheless, the Constitutional arguments got me going. Here's what the Author, "Leon H" had to say:

The first charge that is being bandied about by our Constitutionally challenged leftist friends is that the President's authorization somehow violated the Constitution. If you press a leftist to explain to you how this is so, the details get kind of hazy, and will become obvious, as it usually does, that the particular leftist you are talking to has never actually read the Constitution. However, on the off chance that you are discussing this issue with a leftist who has read the Constitution, you'll likely get a mumbled response about either the fourth amendment or a "right to privacy."

Without getting into a long-winded argument about what the fourth amendment does or does not cover, or even whether there is a "right to privacy" protected in the Constitution, it's important to understand that the Constitution explicitly states (Article 1, section 9) that the President has the right, in cases of "Rebellion or Ivasion" or "when the public safety may require it" to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. In other words, the President is Constitutionally authorized, under certain circumstances, to allow the federal Government to throw you in jail without even explaining to you why you are there. To assume that the President constitutionally has the power to suspend the Writ of habeas corpus, but not to intercept international phone calls from suspected terrorists is the kind of absurdity that only the modern left could embrace.

All bolding is mine. I love it when morons try to argue their way out of unconstitutionality. Here's the thing: First, Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it." Second, Article 1 of the Constitution describes the legislative power, and most explicitly not the executive power. This section of the Constitution cannot reasonably interpreted to provide the power to the President to suspend habeas corpus. All it does it set limits on when Congress can suspend habeas corpus.

Furthermore, it does not authorize the suspension of the writ in circumstances of rebellion, invasion, or when the public safety requires it. It authorizes suspension only when there is a rebellion and the public safety requires it OR when there is an invasion and the public safety requires it.

Finally, his analogical reasoning is not just ridiculous but also contrary to the entire scheme of our government. The U.S Constitution established a government of limited powers. The government cannot exercise powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution. It's entirely irrelevant whether it would be irrational to allow the suspension of habeas without allowing domestic wiretaps without warrants. The Constitution authorizes one and not the other, and the government does not have powers that were not delegated to it.

Morons.