Dodd to Introduce ‘Restoring the Constitution Act’

February 12, 2007

Comments

Tomorrow, February 13, Senator Chris Dodd will be introducing the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007. The text of the bill hasn’t been released yet, but purports to:

The bill will restore Habeas Corpus protections to detainees, bar information acquired through torture from being introduced as evidence in trials, and limit presidential authority to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions.

All of these are laudable goals. However, it remains to be seen what, if anything, the bill will actually do to accomplish them. Stay tuned.

(link via Mona)

7 responses to “Dodd to Introduce ‘Restoring the Constitution Act’”

John Norris Brown

February 12, 2007 at 11:36 pm

I’m always skeptical whenever politicians talk about restoring the Constitution. Most of them have no clue about (or choose to ignore) the Constitution.
legion

February 12, 2007 at 11:46 pm

More interestingly, it remains to be seen who, if anyone, will support it in the face of an absolutely guarranteed veto.
James Joyner

February 13, 2007 at 6:38 am

I’m really excited about this. Is it going to also bring back the original understanding of the 2nd Amendment? Start requiring warrants for searches again? Erase the Supreme Court’s privacy penumbra?

Any word on the 9th and 10th Amendments? I haven’t heard from them lately.
Dave Schuler

February 13, 2007 at 7:32 am

While they’re restoring the Constitution they might think of restoring the central notion of the document: government by enumerated powers.
Anderson

February 13, 2007 at 9:16 am

Any word on the 9th and 10th Amendments?

Silly JJ … there *is* no 9th Amendment. Just an inkblot on that part of the parchment.
carpeicthus

February 13, 2007 at 10:31 am

3rd amendment FTW! I support the troops, but they have to stop using my bathroom.
Rick DeMent

February 13, 2007 at 11:03 am

Really, the 9th is the most abused and least understood amendment in the whole damn thing. Just ask anyone who thinks there is no right to privacy yet simultaneously thinks there is a right to “freedom of Association”.