On 11/23/2013 2:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 1:23 PM, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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/
In the 'war on terror' there has been an unjustified (in your mind) killing of a 16 year old. I'm shocked! Shocked! that an innocent person has been killed. I suppose you recommend that we go back to the acceptable carpet bombing of Dresden or Tokyo. Or do you suggest that we should just ignore these enemies of our nation and wait to arrest them next time they travel to New York?
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 [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.
