What is H.R. 6615 and What does it do?


In a few words, I will tell you what the House Resolution 6615 (H.R. 6615) means. It means that Newt Gingrich was right, when he posted his comment titled: Have our Leaders Lost their Minds?

And the answer to that is an absolute and resounding YES! Let me tell you what the content of House Resolution 6615 contains. And on top of this…the American public is resoundingly against this:


Here is H.R. 6615:

Giving Inmate Terrorists More Opportunities (GITMO) Act of 2008 (Introduced in House)

HR 6615 IH
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
H.R. 6615

To provide for the transport of the enemy combatants detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Washington, DC, where the United States Supreme Court will be able to more effectively micromanage the detainees by holding them on the Supreme Court grounds, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 24, 2008

Mr. GOHMERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

A BILL

To provide for the transport of the enemy combatants detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Washington, DC, where the United States Supreme Court will be able to more effectively micromanage the detainees by holding them on the Supreme Court grounds, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This act may be cited as the ‘Giving Inmate Terrorists More Opportunities (GITMO) Act of 2008’

SEC. 2. FINDINGS

Congress finds the following:

(1.) The United States Supreme Court issued an opinion styled Boumediene vs Bush on June 12, 2008.
(2.) Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the court’s majority opinion, held that foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in United States Courts.

(3.) This is an obvious effort on the part of the Supreme Court to micromanage the detainment and disposition of detainees in the War on Terror who are dedicated to destroying innocent people and the American way of life.

(4.) The United States Supreme Court clearly needs increased opportunity to oversee the handling of the enemy combatants, as it has seen fit to take a greater role in managing the Global War on Terror, which is a duty previously exercised by the Executive Branch. And it should still be folks!

(5.) There can be no better way for the United States Supreme Court to exercise it’s new self-appointed war powers than to house the prisoners whom it has taken a greater role in overseeing.

SEC. 3. TRANSPORTATION AND DETAINMENT OF ENEMY COMBATANTS.

(a) Transportation – The secretary of Defense shall immediately transport all enemy combatants detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Washington, DC, where the United States Supreme Court shall hold the prisoners on the Court Grounds, confined by adequate fencing.

(b) Shelter on Supreme Court Building Grounds – The Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the majority opinion in Boumediene vs. Bush, is directed to provide shelter for the detainees outside the United States Supreme Court building, but on the building grounds. the Secretary of Defense shall provide guards to watch over the prisoners and shall implement a system to ensure that the prisoners receive the appropriate amount of food and water. Should the detainees need the use of restroom facilities, they shall use the facilities inside the United States Supreme Court building. (I ask this. Are they on crack or something?) The Chief Justice, if the Chief Justice so chooses, may perform the duties of Justice Anthony Kennedy under this subsection.

(c) Guard Duty – If any of the nine Supreme Court justices desire at any time to stand guard over the prisoners, or to provide the prisoners with their meals or water, or both, then the justices shall be permitted to perform these functions whenever they want. (Again, are they freaking on psychedelic drugs or something? That is not their job, nor was it ever intended to be their job. To bring in someone who’s only desire in life is the destruction of the United States only to baby sit them is tantamount to treason!)

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT.

If either the Secretary of Defense or any justice of the Supreme Court refuses to carry out their duties under this Act, then their respective department or court shall receive funding for the next fiscal year at half the level of funding appropriated for the current fiscal year, or until such time as the Supreme Court no longer desires to micromanage the prisoners who have sworn to destroy our way of life.

This is almost enough to make me scream out: What in the F*&# are you guys doing? Don’t you realize that bringing someone into our country who has nothing on their minds but to destroy our way of life……..and then bringing them right to the seat of our government, is the wrong thing to do? You are taking them right where they could do the most damage! You are giving the terrorists their dream opportunity here. This is more idiotic than I would have ever given you credit for being, and for a while now I have thought that you guys were complete idiots. But this goes way beyond that!

To bring enemy Combatants into our country, from a place that was made to hold them, to a place that wasn’t, is sheer lunacy, even for the inmates of our Congress.

The best place for these PRISONERS OF WAR, and they are nothing more than that, is right where they are now. The Supreme Court is not the place for holding Prisoners of War. PERIOD! That is not what the Supreme Court was formed for….nor should it ever be used for that. And in the Constitution, the Judicial power of the United States, does not have that power or ability.* The Supreme Court is nothing more than the top of the Judicial System of our Government. If the founding fathers had wanted the Judicial System of our government to be that powerful they would have made them such. They have gone way above and beyond what their powers should be.

And if, and when, these Prisoners happen to escape, and get into Washington D.C. proper….who will you blame for that? BUSH? Most likely, but it will be no ones fault but your own. You need to start using your brains for more than something to sit on. Leave the Prisoners of War right where they are. Stop being stupid.


God Bless America
God Bless our Troops
God Bless my readers, my listeners on BTR and my viewers on Youtube…..

-Robert-
-Seane Anna-

*Amendment XI

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or subjects of any Foreign State. (Ratified February, 1795)

About Robert P. Garding

I am a Reagan Conservative, who is very alarmed at the Liberals who have just lost their majority over our government, but continue to act like it never happened. They have to be stopped. NOW or even sooner.
This entry was posted in Conservative Talk Blog host. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to What is H.R. 6615 and What does it do?

  1. Steve Higgins says:

    As stated, H.R. 6615 is a direct response to Boumediene vs Bush decided recently by the Supreme Court. The opinion is another striking example of the default liberal dilemma: hear no evil, see no evil. The persons detained at Guantanamo Bay were captured by our military while conducting our war against terrorism. Strangely enough, these detainees have proclaimed their innocence. Imagine that- a defendant denies guilt-a notion completely without precedent in our judicial system!

    Well this proclaimed innocence was sufficient for the liberal members of the court to bleed their hearts all over the opinion. The majority concluded that the non-citizens held off U.S. sovereign territory at GB are entitled to challenge their detention. The court had a preconceived outcome to the case, and simply conjured a legal argument to justify their predetermined holding. Consider this:

    “The detainees, moreover, are held in a
    territory that, while technically not part of the United States, is under the complete and total control of our Government. Under these circumstances the lack of a precedent on point is no barrier to our holding.”

    Here the court acknowledges the lack of precedent for their holding, but boldly presses forward anyway. Prior to this quote, the majority cited the Magna Carta as part of discussion of habeas corpus. The Magna Carta!!!! Really??? That document was drafted in 1215.

    Another glossed over issue in the holding was that of a political question. The Court is not entitled to hear cases that are deemed political questions. While it is not black and white clear that the detainee issue at GB constituted a political question, a strong argument could be advanced that it was in fact a political question. Essentially, this issue centered around the President’s execution of his war powers-specifically vested in the president under Article II. Despite these serious jurisdictional issues, the majority accepted the case, expanded rights to non-citizens in an unprecedented way, and dictated to the president how to utilize his war power.

    In sum, the Court basically sent a F.U. to President Bush.

    In my opinion, H.R. 6615 was a symbolic way to return the F.U. to the court. To be honest, I am not sure whether this bill falls with the scope of Congressional power. Also, it has only been submitted to a Congressional committee. It may not even survive to see a floor vote. Also, with the slight Democrat control of both houses of Congress, the bill will never amount to what it purports to be- the F.U. to the court.

    I agree that actually executing this bill is not in our best interest, but I doubt execution was ever the intent of the bill. I am glad to hear the Congressman voice his opposition to the Court’s holding. In fact, I thought it was hilarious.

  2. Angel says:

    Good Lord my friend..sorry I am speechless…………..

  3. Steve Higgins says:

    What is there to be sorry about?

  4. Chris says:

    This resolution is a version of “you broke it, you bought it” aimed at the Supreme Court. It’s sarcasm, pure and simple.

  5. Seane-Anna says:

    Sheesh! I guess all those Germans we held in POW camps in the US during WWII, and who didn’t get lawyers, are gonna have to sue.

  6. “If the founding fathers had wanted the Judicial System of our government to be that powerful they would have made them such.”

    I couldn’t agree more! This country’s citizens needs to start using their brain more and political crap less. I wrote a post about an article I found referring to Federal power vs. State power, check out the article.

  7. Steve Higgins says:

    I read your article and the Stephen Yates’ piece regarding Maurice Bessinger. Yates raised interesting issues of identity. Articulating the ideas of Mr. Bessinger, Yates argued the flag of the United States should not be placed on state property. If so, the United States flag should be subordinate to the respective state flag. According to Yates, persons residing in this country ought to identify first with their state of residence, next to the federal government. I do not agree with this analysis. I consider myself an American- this identity will not change if I cross state borders.

    I particularly disagree with Yates’ following statement:

    “If the federal government is the creation of the states, then the states ought to be the political entities in the driver’s seat if any governmental entities are; the federal government was created to be the servant of the states, not their master.”

    The Constitution created a federalist system consisting of two independent sovereigns- the states and the federal government. This duel system is subject to Article VI-aka the supremacy clause. This states that the Constitution and laws passed in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land. With that said, I cannot agree that the federal government was created to be subservient to the states.

    Notwithstanding Article VI, I understand Yates’ “federal colossus” concern. I agree that there has been an increased concentration of power within the federal government. Advocates of state’s rights are looking more and more at the 9th and 10th amendments for relief.

    Yates himself discussed these two amendments as part of his state/federal government argument. However I found this argument to be misplaced. The federal government was not the entity that brought down South Carolina’s flag. I read that the NAACP conducted a lengthy boycott of the state. Eventually South Carolina’s legislature voted to replace the flag and the governor jumped on board.

    I understand that South Carolina’s flag represented the state’s heritage and many persons residing in the state did not want it replaced. However, the federal government did not replace the flag, South Carolina’s legislature did. In short, I recognize why Mr. Bessinger is frustrated, but it seems to me that he is pointing his finger in the wrong direction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s