Does anyone reading this understand the concept of separation of powers and checks and balances? Principles, I've been told, that form an integral part of the Constitution's fabric?

What about this other principle that supposedly also lies at the heart of the Constitution?
The one about the President not being a King because he is a leader with enumerated powers?

I ask because, apparently, listening to the Bush Administration... my understanding of those concepts are almost all wrong.

* * * *

As a lot of you probably know, the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments on two petitions brought by detainees imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay.

The stand of this Administration is straightforward... the courts (or anyone else, for that matter) do not have jurisdiction over the detainees in Guantanamo Bay. Jurisdiction resides exclusively in one place, the President.

Here is where I get confused.

If the courts have no jurisdiction, who exactly will provide a check against an abuse of Executive power? More fundamentally, do we accept, on blind faith alone, that the President will not to abuse his power? From what I remember from my Constitutional Law classes in Law School, the Constitution's unambiguous on that point - "No."

So what gives? Maybe because its George Jr. making the argument (figuratively speaking), we should make an exception?

(There goes checks and balances. Did you see it fly away?)

Another thing that confuses me, when the Administration argues that it has the right to detain enemy combatants for as long as it sees fit, isn't it essentially arguing that it has the power to act as judge and jury without having to go through a messy thing we call a trial?

I thought the power to declare a person guilty and order imprisonment exclusively belonged to the courts? (Maybe I slept through Criminal AND Constitutional Law? I honestly don't remember.)

(And there goes separation of powers. Say, "Bye!".)

And since when have we ever accepted the argument that the President could, by the simple expedient of declaring someone an enemy combatant, order indefinite imprisonment without the benefit of trial, counsel or the right to be informed of the specific charges? I thought that kind of power belonged only to Kings and dictators?

And I'm pretty sure the President is not supposed to be a king.... so what happened to enumerated powers?

(Out the window, apparently.)

Here's another juicy tidbit.

Apparently, this Administration's also arguing that the courts do not have the power to over-turn the President's finding that a person is indeed an enemy combatant.

That one really boggles the mind.

* * * *

I any case, are there any volunteers to explain it all to this poor sod who seems to have forgotten the most elementary principles of our Constitution?