After listening to the oral arguments, I’m wondering why Padilla’s attorneys framed the argument the way they did. Instead of saying “the Constitution doesn’t allow detention without due process”, they argued, “at the very least, the President can’t do this to an American citizen w/o Congressional approval.” This argument got the attorney into debating the question of whether the broad Congressional authorization for Bush to use force in Iraq was sufficient approval for these types of detention, which is not where you want to be. This argument also leads to a debate about whether the citizen/non-citizen distinction matters, which is also not where you want to be. Does anyone have any insight on why the attorneys chose this tact?