Executive Branch Says Restricting Executive Branch’s Power Unconstitutional

Brace yourselves because I’m about to dump a shocker of a news story on you. The executive branch has come out and said that it’s unconstitutional to restrict its power:

The Obama administration had some harsh words Friday after a federal judge appointed by Obama said the government doesn’t have a right to indefinitely detain anyone even remotely associated with terrorist groups.


Forrest’s ruling oversteps the court’s authority and infringes on Obama’s power to act as Commander in Chief, according to the government’s court filings.

Many constitutional scholars claim that the purpose of the Constitution is to restrict the state’s power. Supposedly the document lists very specific powers granted to each branch of the state. Looking at the document I don’t see where it states the president has the power to indefinitely detain an American citizen without due process. Are constitutional scholars incorrect in this assessment that the Constitution is meant to restrict governmental power or is the executive branch incorrect in claiming that it has the power to indefinitely detain individuals without due process? Thankfully the Constitution describes how these kinds of disputes can be resolved as it gives sole authority to decide such matters to a court of nine people that are part of the state. Wait… there seems to be some conflict of interest here.

2 thoughts on “Executive Branch Says Restricting Executive Branch’s Power Unconstitutional”

  1. Ironically, the Constitution doesn’t give the authority to resolve those disputes to the Supreme Court. The Court just claimed it had that power, and no one did anything about it for so long, the Constitution was irrelevant.

    Did you enjoy your Dead Letter Day, though?

    1. If you read Second 3 of the Constitution it grants very vague power to the Supreme Court:

      The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

      In all honesty that paragraph can be interpreted in many different ways but the language “The judicial power shall extend to all cases…arising under this Constitution” gives a lot of leeway and has ultimately been used as a granted monopoly to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. I don’t think one can say that interpretation is incorrect by reading the language as it does clearly state that the Supreme Court shall have judicial power over all such cases.

      This paragraph and the power to tax are the two biggest issues I have with the Constitution.

      Did you enjoy your Dead Letter Day, though?

      Of course. I celebrated by recognizing the Constitution for what it is, a vaguely written power grab that usurped the far superior Articles of Confederation.

Comments are closed.