On 11/23/2013 9:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Nov 23, 2013, at 10:19 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 11/23/2013 2:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 1:23 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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/
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.
That the president signed a death warrant for a U.S. citizen (acting as judge, jury, and
executioner) doesn't concern you? This was in Yemen, a country the U.S. is not at war with.
Sure, but it's pretty far down my list. I have gone so far as to write to my Senators
saying that Congress should define a judicial process for this kind of killing, rather
than just leave it to the administration. But of course Congress doesn't want to take on
anything so controversial - they *want* the President to do it in secret so they will have
no responsibility that could be used against them in an election campaign.
I suppose you recommend that we go back to the acceptable carpet bombing of Dresden
or Tokyo.
Around a million of civilians have died from the wars in Afganistan and Iraq. Was this
justified to apprehend a small number of criminals?
Certainly not the war in Iraq (where the total death toll is estimated as 300,000). The
attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan wasn't to apprehend a small number of criminals but
to replace them with a government that wouldn't tolerate or even aid anti-western
terrorist groups like Al Queda. The number of people killed there is much smaller than in
Iraq. Whether it was justified...I'm not sure. I tend to look at the consequences of an
action, but they are hard to forsee and so don't help much in retrospective questions
about 'justification'. In the real world one must act under uncertainty.
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?
I wasn't suggesting anything, only providing a real-world example of the very thing you
accused Telmo of being afraid of.
In any case I think this discussion has strayed too far from the purposes of
this list.
Jason
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
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto: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.
--
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.
