Well, maybe not a *coaling *station, but what if a nuclear submarine runs low on naval uranium?
Don’t believe the propaganda. Atomic submarines run on atoms and it turns out a submarine is full of atoms. Hundreds of them, maybe even thousands.
Getting back to the OP, I’m a little surprised to see that nobody has suggested Congress itself has standing. While individual members or even groups of members generally do not have standing (see Raines v. Byrd), Congress as a body or its component houses apparently do. Given the GOP controls both houses, and has specifically enacted legislation prohibiting the transfer to the US, it seems like Congress is best placed to sue.
I’m not so sure Congress has standing to sue when the only injury is violation of a statute. Certainly SCOTUS has not so held. Maybe they would in a case like this.
Well, certainly they could also base their standing argument on the use of otherwise-appropriated funds for the transfers.
I assume that, were Obama to do this, he’d wait until after the election. At that point, do you still think impeachment would be in play? Per my post, above, I think it would have been a high probability action 5 years ago, but in November of 2016-- I think not.
Hell yes.
Leave aside the rights and wrongs of it. This would be the best political theater for the GOP since Watergate was for Dems.
Because it is rather clear cut. Congress passed a law saying Obama can’t do that. Obama does that, to say “fuck you” to Congress. This is unambiguously grounds for impeachment. It’s not even as ambiguous as whether or not lying under oath in a sexual harassment civil suit is grounds - this obviously has to do with the execution of the job of President.
The House would be debating articles of impeachment the day after Obama did it, and would do whatever they could to get a trial in the Senate started ASAP. No doubt the Dems would try to stall. The GOP controls the House. And whoever is elected President isn’t going to get anything done before Jan 21 - if it is a Republican, he will be screaming from the housetops about a President ignoring the law, and if it’s Hillary, she will keep her head down and say nothing, while recognizing that she isn’t going to get away with anything with Congress no matter what happens.
Fortunately for the country and the future of the Democratic party, Obama isn’t that stupid. I hope.
Regards,
Shodan
They might have standing but in order to sue they’d also have to argue they were harmed by the transfer. I can’t really see how the transfer of prisoners from one prison to another causes harm to any member of Congress.
It’s not a clear cut case for impeachment at all. See, e.g., Bricker’s post.
In fact, I’ll bet the GOP wouldn’t even try, much less succeed.
It would certainly be a high profile case of legal disagreement over the power of the presidency, but no more so than the other debates about Gitmo including both torture and military tribunals, both of which contradicted clear statutes (at the time). Ironically, intellectual consistency (like Bricker’s) would put the parties on opposite sides of the argument than Shodan predicts.
Congress has standing to impeach at any time. No lawsuit is needed.
Regards,
Shodan
Direct harm, no. But the Raines Court accepted the premise that Congress was harmed by executive action contrary to a statute, just not that a member of Congress (or six) had standing to sue on Congress’ behalf.
No, I meant the part of his post explaining that Obama would be legally within his power to do this.
Does the recent cert grant relating to the immigration actions come into play here? SCOTUS added the question “Whether the Guidance violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, §3.” I would think the taking care clause is relevant.
I believe the court will rule that the immigration actions don’t violate the taking care clause, and similarly if Obama were to transfer Gitmo detainees that also wouldn’t run afoul of any constitutional provision.
Relevant to the merits, yes. Relevant to the standing issue, no.
Even referring to them instead as “Extraterritorial Detainees Lacking Legal Status But Free To Return To Persecution,” the point is the same. Consistent with your observation that the base is not militarily useful, its only real role in recent decades has been to detain non-Americans somewhere that the Constitution and American legal process could not reach. Now that Gitmo no longer holds that status, even that utility is largely gone.
Congress can’t pass laws taking away authority that the constitution grants the president. Well, they can, but they then don’t get to claim some moral or even legal high ground.
After the election, the die will be cast and impeachment is a distraction. I’m sure you remember how well it worked out for the GOP last time. Plus, you’ll never get a conviction in the Senate.
Unlikely. The framework for this sort of question was just revisited last term in the Jerusalem passports case. It remains the basic structure from Jackson’s concurrence in Youngstown Steel. When the President is denying an express directive from Congress, it is nevertheless constitutional if the action is within the President’s exclusive Article II power.
The whole ballgame is whether deciding where enemy combatants are detained is within the President’s exclusive power. I think it’s probably not, at least not as to long-term detention. So I would consider such an action by Obama unconstitutional, though I think continued detention of many of these guys, and under the conditions they are detained, is unconstitutional anyway, so I’m not quite sure where everything ends up when the dust clears.