On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 05:24:09PM -0000, Andrew Crystall wrote: > Yes, Britain's uncodified constitution isn't black and white in the > same way, but it lets judges have far more leyway to clamp down on > the goverment and other organisations when they try to start working > round civil liberties. > > And yes, the European courts and the Human Rights act prevent a lot > of what's currently happening in America. You may see us as Big > Brother, but we have more solid lines drawn in the sand than you over > many issues. Ours may have started more to the left than yours, but > they're deeper.
How are judges chosen in Britain? In the U.S., many of them are appointed by the President. I am becoming increasingly disturbed by this, because it creates a conflict of interest -- the judges should be a check on the other branches of government, not appointed because they have exactly the same views as the appointer. For example, I cited a case the other day (no on commented on it for some reason) which I think is a CLEAR violation of the U.S. Constitution by no less than a Federal Appeals Court. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/08/national/08CND-DETAIN.html "A federal appeals court handed the Bush administration a major victory today in ruling that a wartime president has the authority to detain indefinitely a United States citizen captured as an enemy combatant on the battlefield and deny that person access to a lawyer." The part in the fifth amendment that gives exception to due process limits it to "when in actual service in time of War or public danger". How can anyone honestly argue that it applies off the battlefield, out of the heat of battle? On the other hand, the Constitution is very clear that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury" and "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Yet the Federal court claims that the President can hold a U.S. Citizen indefinitely without a trial and without giving him access to a lawyer. The article referenced above says: "The Hamdi case appears to be the first in modern American legal history in which a citizen has been detained without being charged and without being given access to a lawyer. While Mr. Hamdi's lawyers are certain to seek a review from the Supreme Court, there is no guarantee the justices will take up the case. Today's ruling may be the most far-reaching yet in a host of court cases brought on by the Bush administration's efforts in the war against terrorism." And also "The court said that it would be improper for the judicial branch to launch an exhaustive inquiry into the conditions of Mr. Hamdi's capture as requested by his lawyers. To do so, the judges said, would be to haul officers back from across the globe and the conduct of the war should not be determined by litigation." Oh, great decision, judge! It is now "improper" for the judicial branch to serve its Constitutional role as a check on the Executive branch? And now we should deny a citizen his Constitutional rights because it would be INCONVENIENT to uphold those rights? I can hardly believe this is happening in the US. It really scares me. What next? Finally, the article reminds us that these judges were all appointed by former Presidents "Judge Wilkinson was joined on the panel by Judge William W. Wilkins, both of whom were appointed by President Ronald Reagan. The third panel member, Judge William B. Traxler, was first named to the bench by the first President George Bush and elevated to the appeals court by President Bill Clinton." It seems to me that judges having been appointed by the Executive branch may be forgetting that part of their Constitutional role is to check the power of the Executive branch when the Executive breaks the law of the Constitution. Instead, the judges seem to make heroic efforts at interpreting the Constitution in favor of the President. It seems that the seperation of Executive and Judicial branches is becoming too week. I wonder if it wouldn't be better for judges to be appointed by a specially-elected "judicial appointer" whose only job is to appoint judges (it would probably not be a full time position). I would like to vote for judges, but I don't have enough time to research them, but I would settle for voting for a judicial appointer or two instead. Appointing judges needs to be taken out of the President's hands. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
