On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 1:23 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/23/2013 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 5:00 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 11/22/2013 5:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
