The Bush administration repeatedly asserted a theory to justify this detention policy. In the same cases, the Obama administration refused to do so, relying instead only on claims of statutory authorization. Describe that however you want, but you can't possibly say that the Obama administration is causing to be institutionalized a theory they've pointedly refused to embrace. As the NYT today wrote:

In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies.

But President Obama’s advisers are not embracing the more disputed Bush contention that the president has inherent power under the Constitution to detain terrorism suspects indefinitely regardless of Congress.

The Justice Department said in a statement Wednesday night that “the administration would rely on authority already provided by Congress” under the use of force resolution.

Can you give me a a source to support this?

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2009/03/the-big-change-in-obamas-position-on-detention-authority.html

When the executive formally asserts a legal analysis (in this case, of certain detention powers), and Congress does not object, then that legal view is presumed legitimate, in terms of Congressional authorization.

No. Respectfully, you're quite confused about all of this. The Bush administration asserted the Article II inherent power to detain; the Obama administration renounced it.

As for the detention power itself, both Bush and Obama argue that Congress authorized it in the form of the AUMF, and several courts have agreed. That -- the statutory theory of detention -- has become institutionalized because courts have accepted it, but the inherent Constitutional theory of Bush/Cheney hasn't been, which means that Congress could, at any time, take away the detention power from the President.

but to most of the outside world they were not just 'words' and 'posture'.

You don't speak for "most of the outside world" -- or for anyone but yourself: why can't you give up that narcissistic pretense? And I'm more interested in reality than perceptions.

Agree and disagree

Sure, it's good we're not getting yet another law that says we as a nation no longer recognize human rights, but falling back on the AUMF and the rest of the remnants of shredded principles and tattered Constitution left in the wake of the Bush administration is still not acceptable.

How is this disagreeing with anything I said?

THe program will continue

For the reasons I identified, it would have been worse with a new law. Between (a) a bad situation and (b) a worse, new development, having (a) prevail over (b) is, by definition, positive.

, radical Bush notion of executive power is institutionalized

This isn't true. The "radical Bush notion of executive power" is that the President had the power to detain people inherently -- i.e., with or without Congressional approval. The Obama administration has renounced that theory, claiming only that they have this detention power because Congress authorized it when it enacted the 2001 AUMF.

I don't think a plain reading of the bill even says what you say it does. Read Section 2.c.1 again in which the bill is specifically targeted at ACORN and ACORN-related affiliates.

You should get a dictionary and look up the word "any" -- as in:

(b) Covered Organization- In this section, the term ‘covered organization’ means any of the following:

(1) Any organization that has been indicted for a violation under any Federal or State law governing the financing of a campaign for election for public office or any law governing the administration of an election for public office, including a law relating to voter registration.

(2) Any organization that had its State corporate charter terminated due to its failure to comply with Federal or State lobbying disclosure requirements.

(3) Any organization that has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency.

That's how "covered organization" is defined. Sec2(a) says no "covered organization" shall received funds or contracts.

Did you ever read what you claim to have read? It's hard to believe.

So if the Government announces tomorrow that only liberals are eligible for unemployment benefits -- but conservatives are barred from receiving them -- that's not unconstitutional because unemployment benefits aren't a right?

If the Government announces tomorrow that it will award government contracts only to companies that contribute to Democratic candidates -- while those donating to Republicans are de-funded -- that's not unconstitutional because government contracts aren't a right?

If the Congress passes and the President signs a bill tomorrow barring anyone who worked for the Bush DOJ and Bush White House from ever having a job in government again on the ground that they committed crimes, that's not unconstitutional because nobody has the right to a government job?

This is how you understand the Constitution?