Even a president's power is not absolute, court says

On the eve of the Fourth of July we are reminded of the genius of the Founders in their writing of a Constitution that protected basic freedoms for the ages and their establishment of three branches of government that would provide a system of checks and balances.
The system is not perfect, but it worked this week.
The Supreme Court firmly rejected the contention of the Bush administration that it is free to hold people -- citizens or noncitizens alike -- for years on nothing more than a declaration that the detainee is an enemy combatant.
The court actually decided two cases issuing various concurring and dissenting opinions. A third case was sent back to the lower courts.
Only one of the nine justices, Clarence Thomas, endorsed the proposition that the pursuit of a sense of security for the nation absolutely trumps the right of an individual to face his accuser and be given an opportunity to respond to the charges against him.
Challenging times
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor spoke for the majority, writing, "It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our nation's commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad."
That said, the Supreme Court ruled that Yaser Esam Hamdi, a young American-born Saudi taken captive in Afghanistan, can challenge his confinement and treatment in the U.S. courts.
The court said the administration was within its rights to detain Hamdi under war powers Congress granted President Bush immediately after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But it also recognized Hamdi's right to challenge his imprisonment.
In a second case, the court said the 600 or so detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, also have the right to appeal their detention to the federal courts. In an additional blow to the administration, the court ruled that the Guantanamo prisoners have a right to a hearing before an impartial body, which may well derail the administration's plan to conduct any trials before military tribunals.
Such details will have to be worked out in lower courts, and if the administration is inclined, it could probably drag additional appeals out for years. That would be unwise. For one thing, it would not be in the spirit of the court's ruling, a spirit that reaffirms that this is a free country and a nation of laws. For another, it would give international critics of the United States additional ammunition to be used in the war of words against America.
The irony of the United States invading Iraq in order to set its people free, while disregarding its own laws of due process and ignoring international law on the treatment of prisoners of war has hardly been lost on the rest of the world. Even Great Britain, our most stalwart ally in Iraq, had criticized the indefinite detention of prisons at Guantanamo.
The prison opened in January 2002 and so far only six detainees have been charged and none has gone to trial.
Youngstown connection
There was a Youngstown connection to the court's ruling. One of the precedents cited by the court was Youngstown Sheet & amp; Tube Co. vs. Sawyer, in which the Youngstown company appeared as the lead plaintive in a suit filed against Charles Sawyer, President Harry Truman's secretary of Commerce.
During the Korean War, Truman ordered Sawyer to seize and operate the nation's major steel mills as temporary government property in order to avert a strike by steelworkers. In a decision issued June 2, 1952, the court ruled against Truman.
In that case, the court ruled that the president's power, even during time of war, must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself, and there was no such authority for the president to seize property, as he did. Clearly, if a president is not free to seize property without expressed consent, he is not free to deny a man his freedom.