On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:00 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 11/22/2013 5:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> > <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > On 11/21/2013 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:20, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution > when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule > laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional. > As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court > > There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right. > Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court, > > > > The supreme court has judged the NDAA 2012 anti-constitutional. But > apparently this has changed nothing. I don't find information on this. Some > sites on this have just disappeared. > > > It changed nothing because it didn't happen. First, the NDAA authorizes the > defense budget and other things. The Supremes would not have found it > "anti-constitutional". The controversial provision you may be thinking of > was clause that affirmed the Presidents power to detain people without trial > as set out in the 2001 resolution following the 9/11 attack. The ACLU has > challenged this provision and a case was brought in 2012, Hedge v Obama. A > district court ruled that the indefinite detention provision was > unconstitutional and gave an injunction against its use. This went up > through the layers of appeals courts. The Supreme Court threw out the > injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring > the case - and so in effect upheld the law without actually ruling on > whether or not it is constitutional. > > This is an aspect of U.S. law inherited from English law, that only persons > who are actually harmed by a law can challenge it in court. More modern > democracies, seeing the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in being able > to nullify unconstitutional laws, have explicitly provided for court review > of laws without there having to be a plaintiff and a case. > > Brent, > > I would say you're making an implicit extraordinary claim here. This > claim being that the reason why certain fundamental rights (like the > right to a trial) are not being is bureaucratic impediment, as opposed > to these impediments being created for the purpose of preventing the > application of said rights in practice. > > > ?? Left out some words? > > > I argue that this claim is extraordinary for the following reasons: > > - The President signed the NDAA. He also swore to defend the > constitution and he's supposed to be a constitutional expert, so it is > not likely that he is not aware that citizens have a fundamental right > to a trial. > > > The controversial clause of the NDAA only applies to citizens who have > taken up arms or aided organizations that have taken up arms against the > U.S. and only for the duration of the war against Al Quida and the > Taliban. So you are confused on several counts. This is what the 6th > amendment actually says: > > *"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 defense.**"* > > Note that it refers to a criminal trial. An enemy soldier captured in > wartime is not a criminal. > It becomes problematic when the "war on terror" has no defined end, no defined enemy, and is global in scope, making the whole world into a battlefield. It is the same stretching of laws that enabled the US to implement concentration camps of Japanese Americans by creating "exclusion zones" around military bases that were hundreds of miles in range of the military base, or the idea od "fourth ammendment free zones" which extend hundreds of miles from national borders, and impact 2 out of 3 Americans: http://blogs.computerworld.com/privacy/21805/2-out-every-3-americans-lost-fourth-amendment-protections-dhs It may be legal under some stretched interpretation of the letter of a law, but certainly not under the spirit of the law. I recently learned that the "*In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,*" is not actually upheld. The Supreme Court has ruled this right does not exist for crimes that have a sentence of less than six months in prison. I guess they don't know how to interpret the word "all". > Second, it clearly refers to crimes committed in a state or district of > the U.S. - not Afghanistan or Iraq. So it is not at all unconstitutional > to deny a trial to those captives in Guantanomo. > It is against the declaration of independence, which holds that human rights (including the right to not be deprived of liberty without due process of law) apply to all people, not just Americans. Have you heard that the US has recently restored the practice of prison ships ( http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/02/usa.humanrights ) to further obscure the presence, number, and conditions of such prisoners? > I agree that they should be tried, but the use of a military tribunal is > certainly not unconstitutional. > > What would you say if things were reversed, e.g. U.S. soldiers were captured and tried by a military tribunals of Afghanistan, or perhaps worse, held indefinitely without any trials at all? The concept of prisoners of war may make sense in a conventional war (between nations), but not a war without an entity with which you can establish peace with and conclude the war. Trying opposing combatants for committing the crime of fighting against your own combatants is also not very sensical. Jason > > > He was not forced to sign the NDAA by bureaucracy (he > might have been forced in other ways, but here we get into pure > speculation). It was fully within his powers not to sign it or to > demand changes; > > > Demanding things of Congress doesn't necessarily get them (particularly > when the House is controlled by the Republicans). > > > - Harm is a very subjective word. If the Supreme Court was interested > in upholding fundamental rights, it could easily interpret loss of > fundamental human rights as harm; > > The point is that the people who were plaintiffs in the case weren't > harmed. > > > - The bureaucratic impediments seem to work mostly in a direction of > loss of freedom. Empirically, it does not look plausible that they are > just neutral attrition -- they prevent Guantanamo from being closed, > they allow for total surveillance, they allow the Federal Government > to go after marijuana businesses that were authorised by their states, > they allow for "free speech zones", they allow for random road check > points and so on; > > - The constitution is the highest law. If people were serious about > following it, they couldn't possible let some lower level law get in > the way. It's a truism that anything that prevents the application of > constitutional principles is unconstitutional, and a lot of people in > the USA swore to defend the constitution. > > > And they are. You are just assuming that it says what you think it should > say, instead of what it actually says. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
