Slashdot Mirror
US Attorney General Questions Habeas Corpus
spiedrazer writes "In yet another attempt to create legitimacy for the Bush Administration's many questionable legal practices, US attorney General Alberto Gonzales actually had the audacity to argue before a Congressional committee that the US Constitution doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights on US citizens. In his view it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the rights are granted. The Attorney General was being questioned by Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18. THe MSM are not covering this story but Colbert is (click on the fourth video down, 'Exact Words')." From the Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel commentary: "While Gonzales's statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it, his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other fundamental rights that Americans hold dear (such as free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to assemble peacefully) also don't exist because the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative. It boggles the mind the lengths this administration will go to to systematically erode the rights and privileges we have all counted on and held up as the granite pillars of our society since our nation was founded."
"Nothing to see here, please move along."
First time I've ever seen that. Couldn't be more descriptive of what the administration would like everyone to do... for everything.
And, btw, this load of crap from the same party who ridiculed "That depends what 'is' is."
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
This story is about a week old, but still very disturbing. Do these people not respect our freedoms at all? Is our next war going to be "The War on Politicians?"
I don't have anything else to say.
Or more appropriately, executed for treason?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
seriously, how can you tolerate a US Attorney General who questions such a fundamental right?
This whole "how much damage can he possibly cause in 4 years?" attitude is appalling.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I've been thinking for years, that this country is turning into a police state. When 9/11 happened, many people, including myself, saw a clear case of Reichstag burning. Whenener I posted this opinion on this here forum, I was modded as a troll.
This country is slowly turning into Nazi America. History repeats itself... Still think I'm trolling?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Is a favorite pastime of both parties. The feds have been ignoring the constitution since at least FDR's new deal, and some would say the civil war.
If you shout and cheer for the limitless power given by g readings of the interstate commerce clause and the 'general welfare' clause (quip), you're part of the problem. If you think that the constitution wasn't designed to cuff the federal government into a very limited role it's now outgrown, you're part of the problem.
If you have no clue what the 9th and 10th amendments are, and you think the 2nd amendment is outdated or a 'states right' (*snicker), YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
The constitution isn't a salad bar. You don't get to pick and choose. You either respect it, or you don't. If you don't you'll get some programs you like (SS, medicare, HUD, etc) and you'll get some you hate, losing your freedoms all the way.
The government pisses all over the constitution every day because we let it and we elect people who make and deliver on promises that are not within the assigned powers of the federal government.
The constitution isn't a living document. It means what it says, with the meaning that the orginal writers intended. If it's a living document then it can mean anything, and so it basically means nothing. The original intent of the founding fathers is not an arcane secret difficult to divine- they were quite prolific writers and record keepers- go find what else they wrote and their intent will be clear.
You can blame Gonzalez, you can blame Bush, but you really should blame FDR, blame Lincoln, and most of all blame yourself.
If you really want to get picky on the constitution, then the following goes away:
Every state and local gun ban
The department of education, the Department of the Interior, HUD, Social Security, Medicare, and a whole lot of others I don't remember.
You can argue that some of those functions are proper for the federal government to have and in some cases I might agree with you. The fact remains that all of them exist only because 'interstate commerce' now means anything that can conceivably happen in more than one state, and 'general welfare' now means 'welfare for the individual.' We can change the constitution if we think the feds should have more power. We just don't bother.
You bought and paid for this administration's abuses with a million other trespasses you let slide because they made you feel good.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Do you need it spelled out to you even more plainly than that?
They are the most vile, unamerican, undemocratic power grabbing swine in the nation. More than happy to subvert the constitution for themselves and thier corporate friends. Some of them were even saying how Mossolini wasn't such a bad guy after all. They are more than happy to expend a few trillion dollars and thousands of deaths to prove thier grand geopolitical theorys.
Oh, and I'll be the first to say it: Godwin's Law!
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Because, those who suggest that are imprisoned and executed for treason.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Where's all these constitution loving guns nuts I'm always hearing about? How come no-one puts a bullet in people like this? Is it just the shoot terms in the US that cause such apathy in the redneck population? Or is it just that gun nuts are too poor these days to afford bus fare?
How we know is more important than what we know.
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
Justice Louis D. Brandeis, US Supreme Court Justice 1928 Source:dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 479 (1928)
"Men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the executive be under the law."
Justice Robert H. Jackson Source:Sam Ervin, The Whole Truth
"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority."
Justice David Davis (1815-1886) U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1862-1877 Source: Ex parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866) DAVIS, J., Opinion of the Court http://liberty-tree.ca/qb/David.Davis.Quote.5879 [liberty-tree.ca]
Yeah. I'll burn the Karma.
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
Here's a great article that explains some of the hypocrisy concerning Senator Arlen Spector and habeas corpus.
In his view it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the rights are granted.
Of course they're not granted, the government doesn't grant any rights. It can protect or violate them, but not decide that they were not granted to someone.
You can't say they haven't tried
...
Oh, wait. Georgia the country. Curse my American geography education!
Demented But Determined.
Wow, his statement is troubling.
Interestingly enough, it was a Republican, Sen Specter, that challenged him on this. As the article comntinues "Gonzales's remark left Specter, the committee's ranking Republican, stammering."
So, if both parties don't want this, let's hope this guy gets canned, quickly.
Have you read my journal today?
We're fucked.
...the Constitution? They claim to do that. And if you strictly do that, you realize that the government only has the powers specifically given to it in the Constitution. All other rights and powers go to the people and/or the states. Thus, unless the government is specifically given the power to suspend habeas corpus (which it *is* in limited circumstances), it cannot infringe upon on that right. That right, as specifically protected in the 9th amendment, is not disparaged merely by not being listed.
Now, if one wants to "liberally" interpret the Constitution (e.g., not use a "strict" interpretation), then you could make the argument that Gonzales is making. Of course, no neocon would do that for political gain, nosiree. Yep, they'd strictly interpret the Constitution in all cases.....
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
We tried to impeach a president for questionable moral and sexual acts in the oval office. Yet we do nothing with this kind of crap going on?
;)
The world is quickly becoming a place I dont want to bring a child into.
Then again, im posting on slashdot. I dout i'll get the chance.
I'm standing over Mr. Gonzales with a stick in one hand and a copy of the Constitution in the other. And I look at the document and say "Nothing in here says not to whack you, Al."
WHACK!
Then I look at the Constitution again. And I say "Nothing in here says not to whack you again, Al."
WHACK!
This repeats until I wake up.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
And why Bush has not fired him for that comment.
Because Bush hired him *because* of such attitudes toward the country and its people. After all, to Bush, the Constitution is "just a god damned piece of paper".
These uncivilized people see public policy and people's rights merely as a speed-bump on their road to greed and power.
-Twi
The Attorney General argues a position that advances the interests of the executive. I by no means support his dumbassed argument, but that's his prerogative. The issue here is what will Congress - that other branch of government we all forget about - do about it? Cut funding to certain programs, refuse to confirm any executive nominees, etc. until the executive renounces its position? Our system breaks down not when one branch takes an outlandish position, but when the other branch fails to call them on it. Presidents and cabinet members will be making dumb decisions for decades to come. What troubles me is that future Congresses will continue the inaction established by the past few Congresses. I'm merely pointing out that our government is failing us in other ways. Please don't misconstrue this as support of the idiotic administration. Hell, the Democrats still won't end the Iraq War because they're afraid a "spin machine" will make them look anti-soldier. Instead they're debating worthless non-binding proclamations - proclamations directed at a president who doesn't care about public or congressional opinion.
While I believe the views expressed by the above poster are extreme (that's not a comment on their correctness, simply a comment on how they compare to the popular mode of thinking), in no way do I think that the "troll" moderation is fair -- it's a valid opinion, even if you don't agree with it. If I had the mod points...
A few years later, a different president tells lies about so-called weapons of mass destruction, fabricates connections between Saddam and terror groups, and uses those lies as a means to justify a war that get tens of thousands of people killed. But y'all cool with that?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
You know, who ever declared that Alberto Gonzales has the right to live? Anyone?
Quite the contrary. The penalty for treason is hanging. Don't they swear them in with an oath to protect the Constitution?
Colbert nailed it with his Brady Bunch allusion:
"But you only said I was grounded from driving your car. You didn't say anything else about someone else's car!"
People are really strange. My conservative parents will complain for hours about the mere possibility of the government wasting money on universal health care, but throwing billions of dollars down the drain in Iraq and this kind of nonsense and they will only grudgingly admit "mistakes were made". My theory is that people just like killin' the bad guys so much that they don't see how easy it is for us mistake who the "bad guys" are.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
I know this one is going to get me flamed into oblivion, and may even result in a rather authoritative knock on my door tomorrow morning, but I'll not be labeled as an anonymous coward either, so here goes...
Through everything that's gone on, from the constant erosion of our rights, to the outright lies that got us involved in what will be a never-ending war, to the fact that the entire administration has shown time and time again that they couldn't give two shits about what the American people at large think, to the complete and utter disregard Bush has for separation of powers ("signing statements," anyone) the one thing I keep hearing is "support the troops."
Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops.
My question is, why are the troops supporting this government? If anyone, anyone has the power to put an end to all of this, it is they. Why hasn't the military staged a coup d'état? Why haven't the troops themselves simply said "enough is enough?"
The part that angers me the most is that these are the people who put this administration in office. Twice! They are the very same people who are getting completely shafted by this government. And they are the blue-collar workers of America. They are the ones whose sons and husbands and uncles (and daughters and wives and aunts) are being sent off to die in a country that doesn't give a fuck about us.
Was it so important that their neighbors, both of whom happen to be named Jim, shouldn't be allowed to fuck in the privacy of their own home, let alone consider themselves married (which, by the way, is just a word -- just a word) that they're willing to die for it? That they're willing to lose their social security for it? That they're willing force an absolutely abominable national debt on their children, and their children's children, and so on and so forth?
Was it worth it, to make sure that everyone says "the theory of evolution," but simply refers to the opposing viewpoint as "creationism" (shouldn't it be "the theory of creationism")?
And if not, why the hell haven't our troops done something about it?
Ack!
He said: "Any society that gives up a little freedom for a little security will lose both and deserve neither." Just thought that might have something to do with what the writers of the constitition had in mind.
How can you suspend something that doesn't exist then?
This was more or less Hamilton's argument against a Bill of Rights. He predicted arguments such as this, based on interpretation of the specific "grant" of right.
But as he pointed out, under the Constitution rights are not granted by the Constitution. Rights, in a government of, by and for the people are held by them in the first place, not doled out by a government that is merely their social tool.
The Constitution is not a grant of rights to the people, but The People imposing limits on the powers of government to infringe and usurp their innate rights. If the government is not allowed the power to infringe rights, no code is necessary to enforce them, and no code exists to be warped into its Newspeak antithesis.
The government only has the power attributed to it by The People. Power is to the people. The Constitution is a limit on the government's power, not your rights. Have we got that?
But The People have come to think of government as the source of power and the doler of rights. Essentially Monarchial. That's why even the term "Liberal" now means a grant from the government, rather than the freedom of the people, and why even "Liberal" in the modern socialist sense is a legitimately bad word in terms of American political philosophy. It implys you are a ward/serf of the state. Someone to importune for a handout, when in point of fact the power, money and services are yours, by ownership and by right.
That these people are being allowed to pervert the system in the name of "Conservatism" to install an Orwellian fascist state is a crime against The People. Literally. The People ought to send them to jail. They belong there.
I fear, however, that instead I, and those like me, shall be sent to exile at best; and the wall at worst.
Been nice knowing you; have a happy; and remember, you do not watch the TV Grandpa, the TV watches you. When you least expect it, you're elected, it's your lucky day. Smile! You're on candid camera. We come in peace. Shoot to kill.
KFG
Gonzo is a smirking fool. His only concern is protecting the administration and its policies. Constitutional rights and justice mean nothing to him. America will be much better off after he is gone.
"Nazi" is a particular group with particular views. Bush doesn't hate Jews. He is not a Nazi.
Bush hates the rule of law. He hates having to share power with the other two branches of government.
Bush is a proto-Fascist. He does not care about the Rights of the People if they get in his way of performing his "job" the way he sees fit. To him, the Presidency is above the Law. Fascism is seductive. It promises "safety" and "order". And all it asks is that some people you probably didn't like anyway lose their Rights.
In a Democracy, the President is constrained by the Law. He must choose the courses which achieve the objects WITHOUT violating the Rights of the People. Any of the People. Any of their Rights.
Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government is more important than the Rights of the People.
It's unfortunate that most gun nuts are all backwater hick libertarians willing to vote against their own interests, and sit on their firearms against their own interests, instead of more rational people capable of fomenting revolution and bringing about a post-state, post-capitalist society.
Hmm. You must mean the kind of society where whoever has the most guns, makes the rules.
Oh, wait, we already have that.
Any more brilliant ideas?
Because Americans are full of ignorant people who don't really care. The majority of Americans really just don't care and it is sad. America just be called The new Rome. Supply the people with entertainment and people could care less about what is happening at the top.
Isn't _EVERY_ _SINGE_ member of the armed services individually sworn to "protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic"? Or is it just the president?
Shouldn't _someone_ be arresting these people by now...? Who does the arresting when the person who is _supposed_ to be doing the arresting is the one that should be arrested?
Yea, I know, slippery slope and all that, but damn, this is sounding a _lot_ like treason (by "pun" or by "confabulation" or some such perversion of the language and with some deliberate mendacity apparent, since nobody can be _THAT_ stupid can they?) executed by or on the behalf of our "elected" leaders.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
The Constitution grants no rights. Our rights are granted by our Creator, or, if you prefer, by the fact of our humanity.
That isn't wild theorizing. It is solid constitutional law.
For instance, the Constitution provides no right of procreation. Most of us would concede it a right of people. So did the Court when the question arose.
The Consitution does prohibit government from infringing on some of our rights, and it gives Congress some powers to protect others, but it grants no rights by itself.
Habeas corpus additionally is not a "right". It is a procedure to enforce a fundamental right --not to be unjustly imprisoned.
As a procedure it is not self effectuating,. It requires statutory implementation. Over the years Congress has both limited and expanded the procedures governing granting a writ of habeas corpus. So have the courts.
Gonzales could have phrased his answer in a form more pleasing to the public. But he is not just "technically right". He is fundamentally right, and the principle underlying his answer is a greater defense of our liberty than a position that the Constitution is the fount of our rights.
See his comments for yourself. This first video shows the conversation between Sen. Spector and Mr. Gonzales leading up to the comment, this video shows the reaction from Sen. Spector and Sen. Leahy.
Truly scary stuff. This administration isn't even sticking to conservative values. They've gone off the neo-con deep end.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
The guns are for protection and to take shots at idiot know-it-alls that like to talk down to us based on where we may live and the fact that we may want to have a firearm in our possesion at all times......
Son, your not gonna win any supporters with your attitude. Also even us "backwater hick libertarians" can read and have access to 'Puters and the Net.
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
the people who are "autotrolled" consider the people in office.. who are actually center-right.. to be "liberals"..
the truth is if you held republicans like ike or even nixon up to scrutiny today, so called "right wingers" would be screaming bloody pinko liberal murder.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Fairly sure that noone's going to knock on your door tomorrow. 'cept maybe some Jehovah's witnesses. /. people have gotten sent off to Gitmo for talking about hypothetical coups.
:P
Very few
Anyway, IANAA(I Am Not An American) but my best guess is that the people who'd organize such a rebellion(generals and such) really aren't getting shafted as badly as you feel you are. They apparently don't feel the noose tightening around their necks, and it probably isn't. Plus even a military coup requires some support from the General Public to be successful. The US citizenry has a boatload of guns, and a fair number of those gun owners really like Bush. It might be sad but based off of my interactions with some of them, and watching your TV it's true.
If They kill off/imprison/whatever Dubya and all the rest of the morons in Washington they're going to worry alot of people that they're losing freedoms. Ignorant though they may generally be, people would probably notice if the government changed hands so drastically down there. They're not noticing these sorts of statements by Gonzales effecting any meaningful changes in the way they live their lives. Now if Gonzales successfully removed the right to eat McDonalds and watch "wrassling" then you might be more likely to see a few hundred thousand nutjobs with a rifle go out for some blood. That sort of shit would be too much
I'll pause for a moment and admit that yes, I'm an evangelical Christian, so here is how I view the statement:
In short, I don't agree with Gonzales' assessment because, from what I understand the constitution is a legal and historical document that is predicated upon the earlier work of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration contains the famous central truth statement:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This central truth statement does a number of things but here are a few bullet points:
1. Individual people and their governments are both under the authority of the Creator.
2. This creator has endowed people with "certain unalienable Rights", the use of the word certain is curious because it bolsters the central truth statement (i.e. "I'm certain that this is true") and it limits the number of rights (i.e. "I get paid on a certain day"). The latter is necessary so that we have rule of law, and not rule of might, or money, or power, or intelligence, or whatever is popular at the time.
3. Being unalienable, it is impossible for these rights to be transferred to another either willingly or unwillingly.
4. The undertone to the sentence is confidently foreboding that "if you attempt to take away these rights you are not messing with just men, but with God".
I'm curious what everyone else's take is on these events.
It's more than an American issue if it happens. Why? In the article it said, "Under the new law, Bush can declare any non-citizen an "unlawful enemy combatant" and put the person into a system of military tribunals that give defendants only limited rights. Critics have called the tribunals "kangaroo courts" because the rules are heavily weighted in favor of the prosecution." Who is more of a non-citizen than everyone from outside the USA? Guantanamo Bay II anyone? This bound to send shudders of disbelief and dismay around the world. It's not like the USA has much popularity lately even amongst its allies. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6286755. stm
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Nobody seemed to care about Americans who have a middle eastern background, since those dark boys are the "bad guys" these days. Nope, not the Jews, or blacks, or gays... this time it's those dirty muslims! Nobody raises much of a fuss when they're harassed by the government and police, suspected as terrorists because in this post-9/11 world you gotta... I mean they wear turbans. Or something.
Then people start to get a bit nervous about how the government is wiretapping everything. Or how ISPs are served warrants (secret warrants) for handing over private data, which can not be publicly disclosed. But hey they're probably just after those scary brown islamic people right, I am safe ... right? I'm a white christian, I'm probably safe.
Oops what's this, the military/government is saying detained prisoners can not question the court process or raise objections. No habeas corpus for them? Well that's ok, we should detain them forever without trial! In this post 9/11 world you gotta...
But wait a second. The US Attorney General tells the nation that US citizens do not have the right to question the legal process or authority of courts. That's citizens, as in YOU, not the brown muslim in gitmo. YOU don't have such a right. Now this doesn't sound cool... it's one of the foundations of western law. Could have sworn that US citizens were guaranteed that right. It seemed obvious.
We should have started worrying when those brown boys began losing their rights. Now they are coming after YOU. Wow just like in the historical warning.
I for one firmly believe one should err on the side of...good? freedom? I don't know what to call it. But to suggest somebody lacks a right because it is described in negative terms is...well, evil. Look at the intent of the words, not every little technicality. It's like when people try to point out that "may" and "will" or "can" are not the same when in reference to a translated work. It's technically true, but...seriously!
One of the first things this government did for its people was guarantee the rights to "life, liberty, and the right to own property" I believe it was phrased. By being so technical on the language, one could all but negate the liberty part if given enough time to search for loopholes. Nobody's rights should be denied because someone didn't foresee a minor technicality of language. That's like saying Shakespeare's work isn't beautiful because it's not written in perfect American English.
The fact that anyone even suggests this makes me ashamed to be called an American, or even a human being.
well, the military CAN be a powerful bulwark for progressivism as demonstrated in Venezuela. but that's because their military has a long tradition of being closely tied with the progressive movement there. and so far Venezuela has been an anomaly.
Well, the Bill of Rights can similarly be read not to create the rights to freedom of speech, as it says only that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."
There were in fact debates among the founding fathers about what sorts of protections should be explicit in the Constitution and (if one were even necessary) the Bill of Rights. For example, section 9 of Article I forbids Congress to pass an ex post Facto law. Why, some argued, was this even necessary? Didn't everyone know that the government just couldn't do things like passing ex post Facto laws?
The founding generation believed in natural, inalienable rights. They likely didn't see their Constitution as creating or bestowing rights, as they likely believed that the rights weren't within their power to create or bestow. Rather, the Constitution protected rights that logically, morally, and temporally preceded it.
I personally believe in natural, inalienable rights, but I think I am in the minority in this. I also believe, however, that the U.S. Constitution is unintelligible without belief in natural, inalienable rights, and I know that I'm in the minority on that. But that's another topic.
The sad thing is I don't think Hillary or Obama will change the rules.
Good point, When is the last time a politician voted themselves less power?
We are all just people.
Several years ago I wrote a state agency in Ohio telling them that they did not have the authority to collect certain data that they were collecting. (We're calling it data type X.) Ohio law specifically says that any state agency must be granted the ability by the state legislature in order to collect data.)
What Ohio law does have, for this particular example, was a law like "Data type X shall not be a public record." The agency I was dealing with responded that the legislature must have indirectly given the agency the ability to collect data type X because they went out of their way to recognize it in another part of the code.
Both this and Gonzale's testimony are creative ways of redefining law.
They don't send people into exile anymore.
Well no. Not sent. That was a poor choice of words. "Flee" before the gates slam shut is more like it. At the turn and middle of the last century many of my relatives got their timing wrong.
It not only can happen here, it is happening here. Complete with masses chanting it isn't happening; just like before. Tee Tum! Tee Tum! Tee Tum!
My papers are in order (by current standards, but for all I know I'm No Fly already), but London ain't exactly what it used to be and Paris has proven unreliable. Even places to go are dwindling and ironically it might turn out to be either Granada or Prague.
At least until the Moors and Turks invade.
Forgive me, I know I'm being cynical, but I'm being this cynical because I honestly feel there is legitimate reason to be this cynical.
KFG
"Clinton was never impeached"
Wrong. Impeachment occurs when the US House of Representatives votes to bring about articles of impeachment. Following that, an impeachment trial occurs in the Senate, where a majority vote can cause removal from office.
Clinton was impeached by House Resolution 581 on October 8, 1999, by a party-line vote of 258 to 163. Clinton was acquitted in the Senate by a vote of 55-45.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Re the theory of evolution, "theory" in that context is a term with a specific scientific meaning, in particular, "capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation". Creationism does not rise to the level of a theory in that sense, and nor does "intelligent design".
It's just unfortunate that the colloquial use of the term "theory" has connotations that make it sound more tenuous than it actually is, and that people who want to promote a certain ancient fantasy exploit that pun to good effect.
I live in Canada. It's cold, it's wet, and during winter(lasts 10 months of the year) it's pretty dark so there aren't many rainbows.
/.ers on that list that I've seen, and they were all jerks anyway. They were bundled off to sunny Cuba for MPAA and RIAA-related comments, not for coup-related reasons.
But yes, using my "m4d hacker skillz" I've managed to download a list of all the people pulled off to Gitmo the past few years. Only 3
paper(constitution)
scissors(government)
rock(people-you,me,all)
too simple
What?
...nobody, except for libertarians, seems to care about the Tenth Amendment anymore. Whenever you bring up the Tenth Amendment, politicians would then find a clause in the Constitution, such as the "general welfare" clause or the commerce clause, and then use an extremely broad meaning of those clauses to justify their laws that clearly violate the original and correct meaning of the Constitution. If they can't do that, they then withhold funding to the states unless they comply (read the 55mph speed limit and 21-year old drinking age; they were passed neither because the states universally decided on them nor because it was constitutional, but because the federal government told them "either you pass these laws, or we're not giving you your money. Capice?").
I love the Tenth Amendment, but there are so many violations of the Tenth Amendment in modern America that it feels meaningless. Which is sad, because the Tenth Amendment was there to ensure that the federal government did not get too powerful and trample over the rights of the states and of individuals. But, as I said in a previous post on this same thread, it's not what's written in the Constitution, but who interprets the Constitution. And as long as we have Supreme Court justices who interpret the Constitution broadly instead of strictly to how the Founders intended, the Tenth Amendment will continue to be spat at, and government will be allowed to grow bigger and bigger until we have no freedoms and no economy.
I've been thinking the same thing quite often lately. The NRA and it's members often claim that they are America's last line of defense against tyranny, so why are they so often standing behind monsters like Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales? If this sort of government is the freedom gun owners are protecting, we'd be better off with the second amendment overturned.
I think ol' Alberto is ignoring amendment 6:
Seems pretty clear to me.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"Seriously, politics should never be discussed on Slashdot as anyone who does not cling to a hard-left viewpoint on EVERY issue is labeled a troll automatically."
If the Ninth Amendment is "hard-left," call me a freakin' Bolshevik.
Its sad that in the United States today you have to be an extremist to be successful. It seems that no one is looking out for Joe Public anymore. I suppose that is because Joe Public isn't a fan of voting and even those who do put less research into it then they do the new *insert new gadget here* they plan on buying.
Everyone should get together and start voting for the smaller parties. Maybe if we get the Republicans and Democrats out of power we could be relatively corruption free for a while. Another fun idea would be to implement a lottery system in which any citizen has an equal chance for election like the ancient Greeks had.
If anything, Gonzales has erred on the side of saying that the Constitution calls it a 'right', which it plainly does not.
Habeas Corpus is one of the enshrined rights that the government was specifically prohibited infringing upon. Whether it's a "right" granted by God or a "priviledge" granted by the law is irrelevant -- Constitutionally speaking, it's something the feds can not suspend without extreme cause.
On a broader sense, if we have to abridge basic rights to wage this war, then our foes are right to oppose us. We cannot do justice to those who were murdered on 9/11/01 if we sink to our worst level.
The Turkish military has staged several coups to restore democracy and remove religious and sectarian zealotry from national politics. Of course, they have Ataturk as a national role model, who was basically Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin, FDR and Patton rolled into one.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
All I'm seeing here right now are the same old, tired, rehashed posts over and over again. Other than the (dare I say it) on-topic references to the Ninth Amendment, there's the thousand and one posters dragging out the same old tired quote from Franklin (repeating it ad nauseam only weakens its impact, if it actually has any left any more), the anarcho-capitalists who find yet another tenuous reason to drag out gun rights (clue: guns or no guns, they have nukes, gas and germs), and the Democrats who think that a Congress, 95% of whom were around for Gonzales' (and Ashcroft's) confirmation to begin with, will actually take action.
It's going on six years since the USA PATRIOT Act. Can't somebody, somewhere, think of something new and original to post for once?
And is there any reason to believe anything short of the state legislatures forming a new constitutional convention would fix this?
"A privilege is granted or bestowed upon someone by benevolent authority, and may therefore be revoked by that same authority."
Doesn't apply to the privilege of habeas corpus, as the relevant constitutional text makes apparent. The conditions for its suspension are defined as rebellion or invasion. Neither situation is presently relevant. Hell, the Constitution doesn't even specify a "right" to a free speech. It just says that the freedom of speech will not be abridged.
Of course, most people would sensibly interpret anything the government is explicitly prevented from curtailing as a right. Unless they were inclined to Clintonesque word games in defense of the current administration's Constitutional abuses.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
I am neither a lawyer or a US resident or citizen. However, I am able to use my brain and know a little about the history of jurisprudence. I'm willing to concede that the Writ may not be a natural right, as such (there are other kinds of rights, but for the sake of argument, I'll concede your point), but it is a necessary instrument that ensures that the natural rights of justice and equality before the law are not infringed upon. The Attorney General is correct insofar as the US constitution does not grant the right of habeus corpus.
However, what he fails to acknowledge is that the Writ of habeus corpus is a part of the common law, and so exists, as part of the law of the land in the US (as it does in other countries that inherited British common law). Legislators and the executive branch of government may not overturn that common law, except in the two situations mentioned in the Constitution. For the A-G to imply, as he seems to be doing, that habeus corpus can be ignored by the Executive is to ignore the fact that the Writ of Habeus corpus is legally binding, and the Constitution ensures that this will always be the case through prohibiting legislation to change the common law. The A-G is being disingenuous, pedantic, and a bit of a dick.
But he comes to the exact opposite conclusion one should come to. The constitution doesn't grant rights, it merely protects them. The original writers of the Constitution didn't want a Bill of rights for the very reason that people would get to thinking that the Constitution grants rights.
Search: "The constitution doesn't grant rights
I do believe you've all misunderstood what AG Gonzales was saying. I will describe for you my understanding of the AG's position on the Writ of Habeas Corpus:
There is not a Constitutional grant of the Writ of Habeas Corpus for every person in the country. [Here's an analogy to aid your understanding: the right to trial by jury is not secured by the Constitution for non-citizens in the country illegally.]
There is a statutory grant of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
The Constitution explicitly guarantees that any such statutory grant cannot be suspended except in cases of insurrection or rebellion. This is the only thing that the Consitution has to say explictly about the Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Please note, on this point the AG is not actually implying what everyone is inferring. He is making a very limited point, and y'all are reading stuff into it.]
Ultimately, what he is saying is this: it is up to the legislative process to determine whether or not the Writ of Habeas Corpus ought to extend to non-citizens held as enemy combatants who fail to qualify for POW status. He is certainly not saying (or implying) that the Bush adminstration can ignore the Writ of Habeas Corpus for random citizens snatched of the street.
Well, yeah. But that's how the Rebel army defeated the British on U.S. soil in the 18th century. We didn't really defeat the British in the sense that they surrendered themselves to the Americans. They just got tired of fighting and so they left.
In the end, it's quibbling over words.
A honeybee can't defeat a man. But then why is it that when a bee buzzes around a man's head that the man runs away? Doesn't make any sense. Nonetheless, a bee can "defeat" a man by making him run away.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
To be fair though, The writ of habeas copus takes place before that portion happens. (or to a challenge form that proceeding) It is splitting the constitution hair when looking at it in that mannor. The constitution was signed 4 years before the bill of rights. So, I think they would have removed the ability of suspending habeas corpus or make a direct claim to altering it if they never intended it to be able to happen. If they specificly intended the suspension ability to go away, they could have easily added something like habeas copus cannot be suspended or revoked and; to the sixth amendment. Something else is that it has been suspended before with no succesful chalenges based on the sixth amendment.
However, the cheif justice of the supreme court who was working on U.S. Circuit Court (in between supreme court mettings) who was also a political oponant of lincon overrulled it citing rule of law and the fact that it never has been done before. Lincon ignored the rulling and congress eventualy passed it into law around the end of the civil war. It also has been envoked a couple of other times without chalenge. Mostley in isolated areas like a single state or parts of a state. One of the mst notable and succesfull suspension of habeas corpus was when president grant suspended habeas corpus in nine counties in South Carolina, as part of federal civil rights action against the KKK.
So even though it seems pretty clear to you, history throws some mud on it. Unfortunatly, the mud and constitution seems to allow it to be suspended. It definatly had good uses against the KKK and allowing some blacks americans the ability to vote!
The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation (14th amendment) the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. This is, however, quite in line with what the Constitution was originally designed to be: a framework for the federal government. In other words, though the federal government was banned from violating the freedom of the press, states were free to regulate the press. For the most part, this was not an issue, because the state constitutions all had bills of rights, and many of the rights protected by the states mirrored those in the federal Bill, and many went further than the federal Bill.
The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So if it doesn't say the feds can do it in the constitution, or in one of the amendments to the constitution, then the feds cannot legally do it. Yeah, states rights is on a serious decline when a state can't even say that it's sickest citizens can take a drug that will help them, because of some insane federal jihad on drugs.
What isn't specifically allowed to the federal government is forbidden.
What does this mean that the federal government can do?
Protect the borders.
Regulate interstate trade.
Go after criminals who flee into other states for a few capital crimes.
And that is pretty much it.
Since when does the NSA need to get a warrant to tap foreign communications?
Even Gonzales admitted that FISA makes tapping communications between US and a foreign country is illegal without a warrant. It is nonsense to believe somehow that just because one end of the call is someplace outside the US FISA, the First Amemdment and the Fourth Amendment are all of a sudden not applicable.
But the president does have the power to do it.
Under the Constitution he has the power ONLY if there is a rebellion or invasion. In only ONE case in all of US History has it been suspended, and that was during the Civil war due to rebellion. Neither of these conditions apply now, and if he tried to do it he should be immediately impeached. Even during the Civil War the courts held that it was not permissible for military tribunals to try civilian citizens.
It seems to me that foreign enemies on US soil do not have any right to habeas corpus. Why should they?
Who the hell decides what a foreign enemy is? Once you are declared as such you have no recourse whatsoever. They can just find a dark hole and throw away the key. Where the hell in Constitution is anyone granted such power? How about the concept of innocent until proven guilty for crying out loud. You are stripping away people's rights before there is even any finding that they are guilty of anything. And the Bush administration doesn't limit this to non-citizens. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld.
Since the 1300's Habeus Corpus has been recognized as a basic human right. Unless there is a pretty damn good reason like an invasion it needs to be defended vigorously. The US should not be run like some military junta was in charge. It is absurd to believe that extending basic legal rights to a few hundred prisoners materially impacts the security of this nation.
Fundamentally by acting in this manner, failing to live up to the basic precepts that this country was founded on, flouting international law and understanding of human rights you are sinking to the level of the terrorists. If you do that, they have succeded in their goal of making us live in fear and darkness.
To be brief, I don't consider the fact that something illegal was done in the past, to be a precedent that says that said act is now legal. In other words, I don't see that there has been any mud at all. The ability of the congress to suspend habeas corpus in time of war is written in. That's fine, as far as it goes, however we are not at war, and that's not what this law does. Aside from that, the constitution can be changed by several methods; none of those have been pursued. Therefore, VI stands as a restatement, with no changes.
Either the government's authority comes legitimately from the constitution, or it comes from somewhere else, illegitimately, because there is no other legitimate path. In this case, it is (as per usual, I might add) the threat of overwhelming force.
And good grief man, get a spelling checker, failing other solutions. That was downright painful to read through.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The problem for US citizens is that habeas corpus has been suspended for them by recent unconstitutional legislation, and in such a way that no challenge is possible because no one knows where they are being kept, why they were taken, or who they were taken by. Might have been a kidnapping by a ragtag group of manic Islamists as much as a taking by some nebulous "federal authority." And of course the prisoner is of no help; he has no representation, no ability to contact anyone, no prospect of a trial, or even of a speedy determination if he or she is actually an enemy combatant.
Habeas corpus is gone, and with it, every part of the 6th amendment. For US citizens, much less for those who are not. And for those who say "not when the supreme court gets after it", unfortunately, that won't stop the government from its takings and subsequent malfeasance in the meantime, will it?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
well, the military CAN be a powerful bulwark for progressivism as demonstrated in Venezuela. but that's because their military has a long tradition of being closely tied with the progressive movement there. and so far Venezuela has been an anomaly.
Actually in a lot of mideastern countries the military is a strong secular, progressive force.
I don't know, Amendments IX and X in the bill of rights explicitly reserve rights to the people:
Amendment IX.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain
rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.
Amendment X.
The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.
Hard to see how Gonzalez wrigles around those and the writ.
The U.S. Congress, under Republican leadership but with an unfortunate amount of cooperation from Democrats, has in recent years routinely voted to basically cede away it's own constitutionally granted powers to the executive.
Does that count?
by rob its people you mean nationalizing the oil industry from the power elite and actually using their national resources to help the majority of venezuelans who are below the poverty line, such as buying unused land from the rich to create farm co-ops for the poor, then i guess so.
I hate to break it to you, but the defeat of Section 220 of S1 was not a shining victory for bloggerdom. It was grossly misrepresented by a targeted astroturfing campaign designed to bring about exactly what happened; a bunch of outrage from people who read the spin but never read the bill. It had nothing to do with free speech, but that didn't stop the spinmasters from using it as a hot button to drum up opposition to a law that they wanted stopped.
And before you come back and say "it was so about speech" go read the bill and tell me where, exactly, is the part where any fine, penalty, requirement or restriction can be triggered by any act of free speech--posting on a blog, yodeling from your roof top, or passing out pamphlets on the street corner, whatever you wish. It isn't there.
If you are still barking up this tree you need to face the facts: you were pwned.
--MarkusQ
P.S. I pretty much agree with everything else you said.
got sources to back that up? because the populus of venezuela all support him as evident from the failed CIA-engineered coup. it's only the small rich minority who lost power due to the new constitution (established through a mass referendum) and the media elite who oppose him.
Please remember, it's not just vague scare quotes and alarm phrases that make him a bad president and his administration incompetent. Everyone has ignored domestic and fiscal policies which have greatly harmed North American unity, which in turn turns into an attack on the economic prosperity of the whole geographical area. Also, cutting taxes while increasing spending is something that will increase federal debt, which will decrease the amount of available money in the budget in the next fiscal year due to increased debt maintenance costs.
Why attack the man and the administration for simply being corrupt, when you can attack them for being incompetent and corrupt?
It's been a long time.
The growth of fascism is correlated with the growth of oligarchical private power. When large private organizations (today, known as corporations) gain enough power, they begin to exert influence on the state. Power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few large organizations. After a time, these organizations become inextricably linked to the state; they act in the interests in the state, and the state acts in their interests. The symptoms of this are everywhere today in America, ranging from the lobbyist epidemic in Washington to energy companies actually writing energy legislation.
If you study the rise of the fascist regimes in Italy and Germany, I think you will find evidence of a tight coupling of private power and the state. Fascists were supported by many of the largest European (and American) corporations, partly because fascist policies favored their profit margins. There is ample evidence of this; Henry Ford was an early supporter of fascist ideas, and Coca Cola invented the Fanta line of drinks in order to sell to the German regime.
Both the government and these corporations idealized self-interest as the guiding principle of society, believing that the public interest could only be served by individuals and organizations pursuing their own self-interest. However, such a viewpoint implicitly favors the most powerful, giving them license to increase their power with impunity. The worship of self-interest and power was taken to its extreme by Germany, and eventually led to the actions in the late 1930's that we commonly associate with fascism. But the period leading to the rise of European fascism should not be ignored, as it is highly applicable to our current predicaments in America.
Here are some quotes on private power that were written in 1762 by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (The Social Contract). When I read these, I am reminded of recent American politics.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Here's some logic maybe even Gonzales can understand.
"Mr Gonzales, how many fingers do you have on your right hand?"
Gonzales:"5"
"Now, the constition says the Government may not chop off your fingers, correct?"
Gonzales:"Correct"
"But the Constitution didn't give you those five fingers, did it?"
Gonzales:"No"
"So Mr. Gonzales, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that since the Constitution didn't give you those five fingers, and the Constitution says the Government can't take them away, that you probably had them to begin with?"
Gonzales:"..."
The depth of irony here is almost beyond pale. The AG of the United States arguing that the Constitution doesn't explicitely grant a right, which is exactly why the authors of the Constitution framed it the way they did to prevent exactly such arguments. The Constitution *grants no rights*, because you inherently have *all* rights. Same as you were born with fingers and toes, you were born with all rights.
These rights are not just if your an American, they are *inalienable* human rights as understood by the founding fathers.
Truly, this administration doesn't understand what "becoming the enemy" means.
So how can one claim to be fighting for freedom and "The American Way", while at the same time taking away that very freedom and desecrating all those men that gave up their lives war after war for freedom and keep from giving a maniacal laugh at the same time?
This administration has to be either the most dishonest or mentally challenged administration in history! George W. Bush is responsible for his own actions. Do not assert that the actions of his grandfather are his responsibility aswell. These are two different people -- you can easily disapprove of either man -- but don't merge them into one person for you to drive your rage at.
---FourChannel---
Depending on the source, the Iraqi war has resulted in between 30,000 and 100,000 deaths of non-combatant civilians. The low number was presented by George W. Bush himself a few months ago at one of his staged 'town hall meetings'.
Given this, and given that Saddam Hussein's regime has been admitted by George W. Bush himself to be unrelated to the actions of 11/9/01, how can the United States claim moral or ethical right to claim justice?
I mean, in pursuit of reckless vengeance, between 11 and 30 times the number of innocent civilians have been killed. Where is the line where the actions of the Muslim terrorists become infinitesimal compared to the blood on our own hands?
It's been a long time.
Don't forget that many on the Religious Right consider Bush to be appointed by God to lead the country. This is part of the Christian Dominionist mindset, where Christians are supposed to take dominion over the nation. Dominion doesn't mean living in a hut, taking a vow of poverty, and serving mankind. It means dominion, as in "you will obey now, because God appointed me." These people are much more dangerous than a few crooked politicians lining their pockets. In the long run, we might be thankful for the current situation. If Iraq has sufficiently discredited the Neoconservatives, and if Gonzales et al have overplayed their hand too quickly and made people realize how contemptuous they are for due process, then we might have delayed their ascendancy for a few decades at least. They won't go away entirely (they never do), and eventualy there will be an effort to actually take over the government permanently, but if enough people know what they're really like, maybe we can marginalize them for a while.
do you know what the GDP is? what good is a high GDP if the income gap continues to increase in a country where over 60% of the people living there are below the poverty line? the number of people living below the poverty line has from 60% to 43% from '97 to '05. yes, he truly is robbing his people and not thinking of the good of the nation.
You crossed that line in 2003 when you killed the first Iraqi (doesn't even matter if it was a civilian or not). Iraq had nothing
to do with 9-11; in fact, if I remember correctly the original causus belli was the supposed Iraqi WMD programs that the
U.S. government claimed to know all about (I distinctly remember Mr. Powell telling the U.N. that the U.S. government knew
exactly where the WMD labs where located). The facts of the matter are that the U.S. wrongfully violated the sovereignity of
a foreign government and started a war of aggression - the very same crime a number of people where put on trial for in
Nürnberg at the insistance of the then U.S. government and executed. What is good for the goose is good for the gander -
the Bush administration should be put on trial, together with all its enablers in the U.S. congress, senate, military and
industry - just like all the enablers of the Nazi regime where put on trial after 1945. With their continual refusal to do so,
the American people loose any credibility whatsoever when talking about justice.
This always scares me. I have never meet this guy myself, only people who claim to speak on his behalf. And disagreeing with God never seems to be an option with those people.
As far as *I* can see, all the right we have, we have solely because other people choose to respect those rights. This seems to indicate that the rights are given by people, not by any god. The set of rights formulated (or was the formulation also godly inspired?) by the US founding fathers seems to me to be one of the best such bill of rights out there. I think the Americans should be proud of them, and fight for these rights to be respected.
Of course I could be wrong, and the rights are really are God given. In that case, fighting for them should be unnecessary. Just lean back and wait for the lightening bolts to hit those people who violate them.
If you think the right to have a gun under your pillow somehow can help protect you from an opressive government, you are, I'm sorry to say, stupid.
If the need should arise to oust a corrupt tyrant (a description that fits Bush very well) who is in control of the armed forces, you need well-organized and equipped forces yourself. This means forces like the National Guards, and parts of the national armed forces that will be led by "good" commanders who will have realized that they should not protect a despot. If the despot remains in control of parts of the military, then you may have a very bloody civil war on your hands. This is a foolish way to conduct a revolution, as history has proven again and again.
If there are no such commanders, your only hope is to convince their soldiers not to fight their fellow people. You can't do that by shooting at them with your peashooter, can you? Depending on the degree of success, you may have a revolution with very little blodshed. I think that's preferable.
Really, this is Revolution 101. Weapons are not very significant. A revolver in the hand of the most determined man, still can't hope to win a fight against a tank. A flower in the hands of a pretty little girl just might.
And yes, I realize I am discussing how to conduct a revolution in the USA. I suppose that makes me a terrorist and an enemy combatant. Fine. I can be found - easily - in the Danish telephone directories. Come and get me!
-Lasse Hillerøe Petersen
Well, I'm a bit unhappy that it's happening in my lifetime, but at least I'm not living in the USA anymore.
;)
Read some history, ladies and gentlemen. Over the years there were quite a few world powers you'd never think of today: Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and so on. These were countries of POWER. They ruled the world.
And after a collapse, they're now very friendly tourist destinations with lovely countrysides and nice people - who don't get on the nerves of their neighbors.
The state collapse always followed the same pattern. And you can see the exact same thing happening in the USA now. Read it up, you nonbelievers
Personally, I like the USA citizens - at least the ones I met while I lived there for a while. It's the state which is running itself into the ground, and which will collapse relatively soon.
I'm sure the country will turn into a beautiful destination for tourist travels; it'll just take a few years.
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
14. Paragraph divisions are our friends.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
He was using OR, not XOR ;)
Well at the very least, maybe Daddy would stop bursting into tears over how the media is treating his son if he'd just realize the son was bringing this all on himself.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
> the US Constitution doesn't explicitly bestow habeas
> corpus rights on US citizens.
Uhhh, the attorney general should realize the Consitution doesn't bestow any rights whatsoever. The people (perhaps via their states) retail all the rights. They are inalienable and congenital. The Constitution creates the government, and grants it powers, powers over those rights, with the permission of the governed.
That's what makes this nation philosophically superior to most others, even other democracies, which either have no constitution and a parliament with unlimited powers, or some kind of constitution that presumes government, then goes about "granting" rights to "the people." Nobody ever bothers to ask how some people, calling themselves "government" gained the power to grant "rights" to other people. Like little kids playing a game of traffic cop, the bossy ones take charge and make themselves the cop while the other kids drive the tricycles around crying.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Marbury v Madison was also the first case of Judicial Activism from the Supreme Court. It was a case that even the Chief Justice and Opinion writer agreed had no standing in their court. Many of Marshall's contemporaries disagreed with his analysis:
In the final analysis though, it is the citizenry who decides constitutionality, not nine old pontificates who publicly display their fetish for black satin moo moos. Everyone must decide for themselves how far their knees bend in acquiescence when facing this tyranny.
There is no justice to be found in a people which allows its government multiplicity in its application of power over individuals. There is no freedom in a people who believe that their liberty is a grant from the government. There will be no peace in a country which does not carefully guard the rights of even their worst enemies. The Dreamtime America becomes naught but a brutal memory if we do not leash and muzzle our leviathan which was loosed upon the world as a wolf among the sheep in the throes of our vengefulness after September 11, 2001.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
The problem with stating that rights come from a creator, or are inherent in nature is simply pragmatic. You must look at the reason that people made a statement like that to begin with. The only place rights come from is other people's willingness to defend those rights. You can squawk all you like about God, Nature, or Ronald fricken' McDonald giving you rights, but if other people won't uphold those rights, all your squawking means nothing. So people claim those rights come from some higher authority in order to convince others that upholding those rights is important.
The problem here is that this is a very base level of moral reasoning, amounting to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. The problem is that others may not believe in your proposed source of authority. That is why it is important to cut out the bullshit and go stright to the heart of the matter. You must convince people to uphold rights not out of respect or fear of authority, but out of pragmatic self interest.
Consider the case where you are utterly alone in the world. You would no more conceive of the concept of rights than a fish would conceive of water. Rights are not inherent within the individual, because without society, the very concept would be meaningless. Try telling a wolf about your right to a fair trial. Try explaining to a tiger that you have the right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness. Without society, these phrases are meaningless.
I repeat: the only reason anyone ever brought Nature or a Creator into the picture is in order to convince others to uphold particular rights by appeal to authority. That is the only point, the only goal: getting others to go along with your ideas about rights. Remember, my claim that my right to Life and Liberty is not going to stop a bullet or a knife, no matter how loudly I shout about it. A bunch of armed friends ready to retaliate may. That is the ugly, cynical truth of the matter.
The constitution is a malleable document. We can change it. We, the people, can rewrite it to add or remove any rights we like. Any rights we add become self-evident, granted by the creator, according to the language. Any rights we take away, such as, oh I don't know, the right to burn a flag or the right to marry a same sex partner, are gone, and it doesn't matter one bit that at one time they were considered inalienable or Creator-granetd, now does it? I'm sure there were some black people, prior to the civil war, who would have had some very interesting things to say about rights, inalieanable, Creator-given or otherwise.
Do not be trapped by appeals to authority. Recognize where rights really come from, outside of the comforting fairy tale. They come from your willingness and ability to uphold them in other people. They come from your ability to convince other people to uphold them in you. That is all, but that is enough.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Today's "neocons" love the idea of a big government, so long as it is big in the right areas. They are downright offended by social programs, but they'd have no qualms about spending a few trillion dollars on the military. The idea is to kill social spending. And it'll be the first thing to go because anyone who wants to cut military spending is against the troops and is a traitorous coward.
When we consider what was written in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, we really need to give consideration to the hypocrisies. When the forefathers say "self-evident", they are saying that with the same attitude that people hundreds of years ago said that "the earth being the center of the universe is self-evident". Or the existence of God is "self-evident".
I mean, most of our forefathers owned slaves. Most of our forefathers felt women should not vote. Most of our forefathers felt that the practice of homosexuality should probably be punished by death.
In my opinion, nobody has any unalienable rights. When you are born, you live until you killed by someone (or something) else.
If you want to be smart, don't worry so much about protecting your "rights" or your "perceived rights". Forget about that and worry about how you can sufficiently influence your own environment to allow you to live your life to its fullest. Whether that is through money, through love, through giving, or through force.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So even if Habeas Corpus isn't enumerated, it still exists, and can't be denied except in cases of rebellion or invasion.
But this still doesn't explain why some opponents of the President think that Constitutional rights guaranteed to the citizens of the US need to be extended to their enemies.
Our original Constitution forbade taxes on personal labor and private control of currency. Look at what we have now; - the Federal Reserve and income taxes.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof and of any foreign coins. But that is not the case. The United States government has no power to issue money, control the flow of money, or to even distribute it - that belongs to a private corporation registered in the State of Delaware - the Federal Reserve Bank."
"The purpose of the personal income tax is to redistribute wealth upward and to control the civil society. The purpose of the Federal Reserve is to redistribute the wealth upward and to control the civil society. The receivers of the redistributed wealth and the controllers of the society are the private owners of the Federal Reserve -- not the government."
http://www.populistamerica.com/federal_reserve
I, for one, am calling all of my congresspeople, and insisting that Gonzales be impeached for gross incompetance. He serves, and is paid with my tax dollars, at the consent of Congress. If this is the level and type of service he is providing, I am not okay with money for his paycheck coming out of mine. The President and Vice President can only be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors;" there is no such standard for the officers of the executive branch, and I think something like this - particularly when added his previous statements - more than merits his removal. As far as I am concerned, he is fired. I'll be doing what I can to see that reality reflects this.
How, exactly? How are you proposing that Bush's grandfather's dealings with Nazis and Arabs directly led Western intelligence services to mistakenly believe that Saddam had WMDs?
The WMD is just the intelligence the Bush Administration was asking for. The real start to all of this started with Prescott Bush and his dealings to import Arabic Oil- without which we would never have gotten involved with the Middle East at all. No interest in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait would have meant no Gulf War I, and no need to remove Saddam Hussien in Gulf War II.
How are you proposing that Bush's grandfather's dealings with Nazis and Arabs directly led the vast majority of American congressmen and women to support regime change in Iraq?
Regime change in Iraq became neccessary because of the Assassination Attempt on Former President Bush I, and 9-11. That assasination attempt would never have been tried if not for Gulf War I, which would not have happened had we not been importing oil from the Middle East. It's all linked.
Now having said that- Prescott Bush wasn't exactly the begining of the story either. Our sale of Rum to the region in the late 1700s is closer to the begining. But that just goes to show what a national security risk foreign trade really is.
That's among the most ridiculous comments I've read today. (Are you suggesting that he would take to the field himself if the supply of volunteers dried up?)
More like, we would have found a way without war if he was forced to go himself (or for that matter, if any family member of any elected official in the Beltway was at risk in this war).
Seriously, even if we set aside the issue of age, it is not cowardice for a public figure to refrain from taking to the field himself. If Mr Bush were in fact to kit up and join a front-line squad in Baghdad, it would not be an act of bravery but an act of stupidity: he would be recklessly endangering the lives of those around him, because to kill or capture George W. Bush would immediately become the single highest-priority task for every single insurgent in Iraq. Since when was taking obvious precautions to protect American troops and Iraqi civilians alike "cowardly"?
Seems to me that by drawing every single insurgent to attacking a single man, that would protect any American troop or Iraqi civilian that was *not* that man. In fact, knowing that, one could put forth a very interesting honeypot tactic in which you surround that man with a killzone, and anybody coming near him is killed. As the insurgents take the bait, you'd end up with nice piles of dead insurgents. Is the military mind really so naive not to see such an opportunity?
If you were somehow trying (rather ineptly) to allude to his not having taken part in combat during Vietnam, then you might almost have a hint of a point. Except that it's disputable whether avoiding front-line combat in Vietnam was really cowardly. Some would say it was merely common sense.
Actually, I was only alluding to the idea that a leader should either take the same risks he asks others to take, or find a way that does not include those risks.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Well, I am not suggesting we all turn into Waco's, but it does make me glad that I have been supporting the NRA's defense of the 2nd amendment and the ACLU's support of free speech. Guess that makes me a strange bedfellow ...