A small victory in an undoubtedly ongoing battle.

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court apparently rediscovered their Constitutional mandate to interpret the Constitution, and participate in the checks and balances upon the other two branches of our government. In a 5-3 decision, with Chief Justice Roberts recusing himself, the court ruled that President Bush had overstepped his authority in applying military tribunals to a so-called “enemy combatant” by the name of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, held in Guantanamo Bay. The court did; however, seem to leave the door open to allow Congress to provide the President with even more wartime powers, which might render this ruling moot.

The spineless administration lapdogs in Congress wasted no time jumping on that opportunity, and made it a point to “spin” the discussion in that direction. Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee said Thursday that he would sponsor legislation after the Holiday break that would authorize the military tribunals.” To keep America safe in the war on terror, I believe we should try terrorists only before military commissions, not in our civilian courts," said Frist. Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, has offered to work with the White House on legislation that would allow the administration to try the Guantanamo prisoners before a military tribunal. "The court said that military commissions would be proper if Congress blessed those commissions -- that the president by himself could not do this, that he had to come to Congress and get the Congress to bless the military tribunal. I agree with that. I think it would be better off if the Congress and the White House work together to pass a statute that would allow these terrorists to be tried in a military court."

So, given the direction this seems to be going, the obvious question to the Congress is, are we willing to legislate the violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice by our government? Because that was one of the salient points of the Supreme Court ruling - "For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions."

In effect, if the Congress passes legislation that gives the President the authority to convene such military tribunals for detainees such as Hamdan, we will be in violation of a treaty that we were a signatory to, as well as the “rules of the road” for military justice that we, ourselves, established. And the next obvious question becomes, what other laws, codes and international treaties are we willing to abandon in the name of national security? And what, may I ask, is the benefit of “national security” if we have now become a nation no longer bound by the rule of law?

I am truly encouraged by yesterday’s ruling by the Supreme Court. But my hope is somewhat tempered by the possibility that the Congress will take action that flies in the face of what the Justices were trying to say. Here’s a hint folks… this isn’t the way our founding fathers envisioned the evolution of our republic. And to continue to abandon the principles which they and the many that have followed them, have fought and in some cases, died to protect, would be a treason to their memory. On the eve of the Fourth of July Holiday, celebrating our great nation’s 230th birthday, that is a truly sad thought.