Deference to Congress and Boumediene
Ms Janet Cooper Alexander
jca at stanford.edu
Tue Jun 17 17:54:04 PDT 2008
I thought that limiting federal power was exactly what Boumediene was
all about. No one is arguing that Tarble's Case is no longer good
law, and therefore detainees can seek a remedy in state court.
Quoting DavidEBernstein at aol.com:
> The fact that the decisions were, in fact, rather inconsequential, didn't
> prevent some rather alarmist articles, books, and essays about how
> the Court was
> somehow returning the United States to the pre-New Deal stone ages.
> As for liberty, there is a long tradition, which some of us still adhere to,
> holding that limiting federal power is in fact a very important aspect of
> liberty, even if the facts of Lopez and Morrison were not terribly
> relevant to
> that goal. Consider, instead of those two cases, Gonzalez v. Raich.
> In a message dated 6/17/2008 7:57:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> bickersj1 at nku.edu writes:
> Isn't this an apples-oranges comparison? When the Court was reigning in
> Congress and the President as to Commerce, there wasn't really any
> interest on
> the opposite side. After all, nothing about the act at issue in Lopez
> preempted any state prohibition of guns in schools. The Court's
> decision wasn't
> even protective of future defendants: Congress simply repassed the
> statute, with
> the jurisdictional element that the Chief Justice suggested, and life went
> on. One may agree or disagree with the results, or the institutional
> relationships they suggest, but those cases seem to be purely about
> separation of
> powers, and not about liberty.
> **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
> fuel-efficient used cars.
More information about the Conlawprof