DOJ: Some Constitutional Rights Can't Be Tested In Courts, Like Our Ability To Kill You With A Drone
from the say-what-now? dept
Another day, another crazy claim from the DOJ. The latest concerns a legal challenge to the administration's ability to use drone strikes against US citizens abroad. The US has been arguing that this issue cannot be tried in court because it's outside the court's jurisdiction and because of national security reasons. Most ridiculously of all, the DOJ has argued that there are Constitutional rights that cannot be challenged in court:Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Hauck argued there was a difference between having a constitutional right—which he said could be protected by the executive and legislative branches—and being able to make constitutional claims in court.Think about that statement for a second. It's not just legally wrong, it's horrifying. Thankfully, Judge Rosemary Collyer found this claim equally bizarre.
"I'm really troubled…that you cannot explain to me where the end of it is," Collyer said. "That, yes, they have constitutional rights but there is no remedy for those constitutional rights."In case you're wondering, Hauck apparently is relying on the Political Question Doctrine, which tends to be applied very narrowly and is only supposed to mean that courts should not take on cases that present a "political" question rather than a "legal" question. But, a Constitutional issue over whether or not the US government has the right to kill a US citizen like that certainly seems like a legal question, not a political one.
Hauck further argued the executive and legislative branches could be trusted to protect the rights of citizens. In other words: "Hey, courts, don't worry about US drone strikes killing US citizens, Congress and the administration have this one covered." But, um, that's not how it works. We have three branches of government for a reason, and the checks and balances they provide is the key reason. Having an administration that is in charge of using the drone strikes, along with a very compliant Congress, as the only ones capable of determining if the use is appropriate seems to completely ignore the basic premise of the checks and balances of government, especially when it comes to the Constitutional rights of US citizens.
"The problem is, how far does your argument take you?" Collyer said, adding that she found it "a little disconcerting" that the government was arguing that there could be no court review of a decision by the executive and Congress to target American citizens abroad.It's good to see the judge is concerned, but this case has a long, long way to go, and the administration is going to try as hard as possible to keep this issue out of court entirely.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: administration, brian hauck, constitution, courts, doj, drone strikes, drones, political questions doctrine, rosemary collyer
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Make sure their first targets are themselves..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tomorrows Headline Today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Test killer drone on Snowden in 3..2.1
Perhaps the DOJ is thinking of Ed Snowden as their first test target.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Test killer drone on Snowden in 3..2.1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Test killer drone on Snowden in 3..2.1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Test killer drone on Snowden in 3..2.1
The DOJ has a page that explains Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 242 of the US Code. Nowhere does it say that the statute only applies on US soil, it simply makes it a criminal act for a government official to do such a thing ANYWHERE.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/242fin.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong on so many levels
So you have a right, but you're not allowed to argue for it in court... yeah, at that point it's no longer a right, but merely a 'privilege', and one that can apparently be taken away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong on so many levels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, technically...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, technically...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stand your ground laws now needed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stand your ground laws now needed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stand your ground laws now needed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
self-apparent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And Congress?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Al Qaeda has won!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If others use drones against the US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If others use drones against the US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If others use drones against the US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right to petition the Government
So, we have a First Amendment right to question things like this.
Also, killing an American remotely like they want is clearly a violation of the Constitution (guarantee to Life) & a number of Amendments, especially Due Process, which is in the 5th & 14th Amendments.
Glad the Judge appears to see through the DoJ's overreach attempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The amazing stupidity of the DOJ
Our Constitution was written to put limits on government, enumerating what God Given rights humans have that a government cannot take away.
Yes, that is correct, we have God Given Rights that no state can twist into a privilege such that it believes it has the right to dictate what privileges you do or do not have.
Those smarmy jerks at the DOJ are just floating a concept to see if we will buy into it, thus setting precedent that they will then use against us.
I hate lawyers ! ALL OF THEM !
Law has become the scourge of humanity, in that belief in a law written on paper, supersedes our rational thinking processes. The laws are written by lawyers in legalese such as the 73,954 page tax code which is so convoluted that hardly a person can know even a small smidgeon of that BS legalese, let alone the lawyers.
IE: Lawyers write the laws such that only they are able to discern the laws convolutions, thus forcing us to pay them to untwist the BS from rational thought.
In believing in their superiority, they choose to not understand one of the basic tenants of human activity, which is, that there is no solid foundation that laws can be based upon because humans are capricious in nature.
Sooooo, every law is left up to interpretation, and that is where lawyers make their money, as they BS us into believing that their interpretation is the correct one.
Our court system is broken beyond repair and needs a complete overhaul, because every human endeavor reaches a point of entropy. As humans evolve, so must our rules for law also evolve, but when laws become so convoluted that no one can understand its premise, it needs to be done away with, as evidenced by thousands of passe laws on the books that most do not know exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]