Political Crossfire Forums

[British boy]

I was reading this book (Conviction by Richard North Patterson) and he refers to the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. what I was wondering is how is this law constitutional when it seems to violates the suspension law in article 1, section 9, clause 2. Doesn't AEDPA infringe upon seperation of powers, as congress is overstepping its powers, and if so why was the law not struck down by the supreme court?
Also I was told that AEDPA bars 'free standing innocence' how is that not a violation of the constitution?
If someone could inform me about this it would be great, though if no one can don't worry, cheers :)

[John Galt]

British boy wrote: I was reading this book (Conviction by Richard North Patterson) and he refers to the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. what I was wondering is how is this law constitutional when it seems to violates the suspension law in article 1, section 9, clause 2. Doesn't AEDPA infringe upon seperation of powers, as congress is overstepping its powers, and if so why was the law not struck down by the supreme court?
Also I was told that AEDPA bars 'free standing innocence' how is that not a violation of the constitution?
If someone could inform me about this it would be great, though if no one can don't worry, cheers :)

What part of the AEDPA are you referring to? Why does it "seem to violate" the Constitution?

[British boy]

Article 1, section 9, clause 2 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." I don't see how this law is not in violation of that. Also congress is impeding the power of the judiciary to hear cases.

[bigstick61]

It does violate the Constitution, if I'm thinking of the right bill. It suspends the writ of habeus corpus for non-citizens accused of being combatants. It is unconstitutional for two main reasons: one, it is being done when there are no rebellions or insurrections in the US, and two, it distinguishes between citizens and non-citizens; in the Constitution, rights are guaranteed in (although they do not originate from) the Constitution to all PERSONS, not just US citizens. It is also denying other parts of the due process of law, also illegal.

[British boy]

So how come is wasn't struck down by the courts?

[John Galt]

British boy wrote: So how come is wasn't struck down by the courts?

Do you have a case to cite?

While bigstick is correct it applies to non-citizens caught in the United States, it does NOT apply to non-citzens taken elsewhere, nor as precendent of Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) does it apply to enemy combatants caught inside the United States.


Then again, that's if you are talking about what I think bigstick is. However, I still don't know what in the AEDPA you are talking about. What section? I know the Constitution please do not quote it again. I do not know the AEDPA and you can't really just say, "isn't it unconstitutional?" if you don't even quote one line from it.

We can't tell you why it wasn't struck down because you have yet to explain what is unconstituional about it. Stating what it violates is of no help if you cannot explain why it violates it by quoting the text of the law.

[British boy]

Not really I'm British so I don't know anything about AEDPA but I do know that it restricts habeas corpus petitions for death row inmates. I think you can only get one on the basis of something being unconstitutional in your original case.