On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 1:23 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 11/23/2013 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 5:00 AM, 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> 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? >>> >> Only one, I think, but it ruined the paragraph. Sorry. >> "...certain fundamental rights are not being upheld is bureaucratic >> impediment,..." >> >> 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 >>> >> Of course "aiding" said organizations can be defined as anything that >> goes against the government's wishes. Especially when we have to take >> the Government's word on even the existence of such organisations. >> > > You are assuming the government (prosecutors) get to redefine words so > that "aiding" can mean anything. But once you assume that, then no law has > any meaning. Anyway you are wrong. Judges and juries and even military > tribunals are not all stupid or tools of despotic Presidents or lackeys of > corporatism. You so readily make those assumptions implicitly; but you > don't see that if true then you are already living in 1984. Do you really > think this is dystopia? Are you afraid the CIA will have you assassinated > for you opinions? They've already assassinated American citizens (suspected not convicted of any crime) for essentially what amounted to speech. A few weeks later they assassinated his 16 year old son, also a US citizen, apparently for no other crime than having had al-Awlaki as a father. See: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/ Jason -- 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.