Not when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public
Safety may require it" . The Southern States breaking away from the Union and firing on a Federal Fort sounds like "rebellion" to me. The Constitution allows Congress to suspend habeas corpus, not the President. Lincoln violated the Constitution by suspending it himself, which he explained by pointing out that it was an emergency and Congress was not in session. It should be mentioned in his defense, however, that as soon as Congress reconvened, he notified them of his actions and they then acted lawfully to suspend habeas.
The Senate does not ratify a treaty. The Senate gives its advice and consent to the ratification of the treaty by the President. Once this happens, the President executes treaty ratification document, and sends it to the depository power for the treaty. The treaty depository can be a state party to the treaty or and international organization, such as the United Nations, the Organization of American States, the European Union, etc.
The Council of Europe is NOT the European Union! The EU is an organization whose members have given up some national sovereignty to form a quasi-confederation and whose goal is the unification of Europe. They are the "Europe of the 15 (for now)". The Council of Europe is a much larger body dedicated to promoting peace, human rights, and European culture. It is the "Europe of the 44" and includes Russia and all but one other "European" former Soviet states. The main difference between the two is that the 15 EU members have ceded portions of their national sovereignty to a supranational authority, while the 44 members of the CoE keep their sovereignty and merely agree to various treaties that the CoE has promulgated. The EU has the power to mandate that a member state change its national laws to conform to the EU rules; the CoE has no such power.
If your area is like mine, what you most likely see is a school in a wealthy suburb, where property values are so high that poor people or even lower-middle class people can't afford to live there, with "a brand new multimillion dollar school facility being built and haggling being done over getting a pool." The other school is in a poorer, usually inner-city school district, with much lower property values, and thus, much less money. Maybe its time we set school funding on a state-wide basis rather than a district one and level the playing field.
Get a friggin' life! Some people have no sense of humor....just like the jackasses that changed the name of Dr. Dobb's Journal of Computer Calisthenics and Orthodontia into Dr. Dobbs Journal of Software Tools for the Professional Programmer. Sheeesh.
Wrong. The Japanese plans had armor, just not a lot of it. They did not "only have fuel for a one-way trip". They attacked in waves, each wave returning to the carriers when done. A few were crashed into things, but only after being so damaged that they were going to crash anyway. I think you are confusing the attack on Pearl with kamikaze attacks later in the war.
You know, it would be nice if people actually knew what they were talking about before they started talking....
The UN Security Council is charged with "the maintenance of international peace and security." It is composed of 15 members, 5 of which are permanent (US, UK, France, Russia, China), and 10 of which are elected by the General Assembly with "due regard . . . to equitable geographic distribution." The 5 permanent members can veto any non-procedural resolution of the Council. This does not apply in any of the other major organs of the UN: the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, or the International Court of Justice. So you are wrong...the Big 5 cannot "veto whatever another country attempts to propose or pass in the UN."
You state that "The structure of the UN, particularly the Security Council, leave a lot to be desired." The structure was chosen to reflect reality. The painful experience of the League of Nations experiment taught that if you try to set up a "perfect, idyllic system", you get something that will not work. For the United Nations to work, the framers had to have great power "buy-in." The price of that buy-in was the veto. Without it, there would have been no United Nations.
Re:The human mind is a good filter [possibly OT]
on
The Hypermedia Hazard
·
· Score: 1
Uhmmm. You seem to suggest that the Americans were cowering in the rear whilst the brave Brits were doing all the work in Operation Market Garden. Who was responsible for thinking up this grand plan and sending the British on what had to be one of the most poorly planned military missions in the war? Why Field Marshall Montgomery, of course. His ineptitude was responsible for putting those Brits, and the Americans who went with them, in mortal danger. As to Britain's contribution vis á vis the American's contribution to winning the war: Neither hold a candle to the Soviet's contribution. They tied down the creme of the German armed forces in large numbers, allowing the western allies to face better odds on the Continent. And frankly, without the Americans, the British would not have been able to do much at all to clear the Nazis out of Europe. Very little of our Army was left after the evacuation of Dunkirk. And without the American war plants turning out an ungodly amount of materiel, we would not have been able to equip the Army we had left. Now, as to Band of Brothers being "distorted"...it is the history of one company of American paratroopers. This may come as a surprise to the uneducated, but unit histories tend to emphasize what just that one unit did. Doh! They don't show what the U.S. Marines, or the Rangers, or the Navy, or the Canadians, or the Soviets, etc., did because they are not about those other units/services/nations!
Finally, as a British citizen living in the United States, I have to say that the American lack of geographical knowledge is not any worse than a lot of Europeans of my acquaintance. Most folks know the half of the hemisphere in which they live, but not a lot else. Sad.
A few things: Why has no bail been set?...probably because the prosecution convinced the judge that he was a significant flight risk. And frankly, he may be a flight risk. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a travesty that he is in jail at all. But given the normal standards used in a bail hearing, the judge is well within his/her rights to deny bail.
When is he going to be indicted by the grand jury?...you don't have to be indicted by a grand jury. Most criminal defendants are not. The prosecution files an "information" or a "criminal complaint" indicting you with the court, and the judge issues a bench warrant for your arrest.
BTW, we don't "routinely let murderers and rapists out on the street on unjustifiably puny bails." We let people who are accused of crimes out on bail if the judge does not believe that they have a high risk of flight or a high risk of danger to the community. That is because they are presumed to be innocent until they are proven guilty. Sometimes the system fails, but it usually does not.
He is being detained until he can be transferred to the Bay Area for trial in the U.S. District Court in SF. Once there, there will be a preliminary hearing and trial will be scheduled. He will probably be detained until after the conclusion of the trial. If found not guilty, he will then be freed. If found guilty he will be detained during any appeals, and unless the conviction is overturned, he will then be sentenced. That is how the system works.
That is not generally the case. This issue usually comes up in immigration cases. The US does treat non-citizens rather differently from citizens in some areas of its legal system.
You are not correct. In criminal law, every one, citizen or not, has the same rights under the Constitution. Immigration is a special case, and immigration proceedings are not criminal law--they are immigration law, concerned with whether or not an alien has entered or remains in the United States properly. A citizen is never subject to these proceedings.
The detention of aliens prior to their hearing is not a criminal detention, but an administrative detention. There is a difference. In an immigration proceeding, the question is whether or not someone will be allowed to stay in the country. In some cases (risk of flight, usually), the alien is detained until the hearing and/or appeals process concludes and they are deported or allowed to stay. In other cases, the alien is paroled pending the hearing. In a criminal hearing, the issue is whether or not you will be imprisoned, fined, or executed. All due process standards apply to all defendants in criminal cases.
... but if you go back to the 1960 election, Chicago and other areas were ripe with fraud benefitting the dems and Nixon, being the leader that he was, got up and said that he wouldn't challenge the vote because it was in the best interest of the office of the presidency to let it stand. Kinda funny that the man later nearly brought down with an impeachment cares more about the rule of law than the man who got off on the iced tea defense, huh?
No. The reason Nixon didn't challenge the Chicago precinct results (which were, uhm, *enhanced* by the Daley machine) is that downstate Illinois precincts, which were controlled by Republican machines, were also, uhm, *enhanced* by Nixon's folks. As were precincts in Indiana, which Nixon won. Nixon weighed the probable outcome of a massive recount/challenge and came to the conclusion that it wouldn't be worth it.
It is not "magical"...it is a lot of damned hard work by folks who are working their butts off. I know...I have been an Election Judge in Maryland.
Do you know how many people would have to be in on a conspiracy? Let's see...
There are several ways of vote tabulation...automatic voting machines (you know, the ones with the levers and curtains), punchcard ballot machines, and computerized machines. I can only speak for the punchcard machine jurisdictions, but the procedure is similar for the others. This is what happens when you vote: Your punchcard is placed in a sealed box under the control of an election judge, who is appointed and sworn in by the state or county board of elections. There are usually two boxes for each precinct, an "AM box" and a "PM box". The boxes are transported (AM just afternoon and PM after the polling place closes) to the Board of Elections headquarters under the constant guard of the sworn election judge. The ballots are then counted using a card reader. This is done in the presence of observers from the candidates. The Chair of the Board of Elections certifies the results for the county to the State Board of Elections. The Chair of the State Board certifies the state results to the Secretary of State (the state Sec'y of State, not Madeline Albright....). In the case of the Presidential Election, the state Secretary of State swears in the Electors for the candidate that has won the popular vote of that state and gives them their official Commission. The Secretary of State certifies the state results and forwards the names of the duly elected Electors to the Archivist of the United States. The Electors meet in the State Capitol on the day set by Congress (the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December) and vote for the President and Vice-President. Their ballots are sealed and send to the President of the Senate (uhm... Al Gore), who on 6 January presides over a joint session of Congress where the ballots are unsealed, opened, and counted by hand (4 people, 2 appointed by the Senate and 2 by the House, get to do the actual counting). And that, Virginia, is how the President is elected.
All along the way, people who have sworn to be impartial, fair, etc., observe the process. In addition, observers from the candidates and parties watch the process. I suppose you could argue that all of them could be either in on the conspiracy or duped, but in that case, nothing less than every person in the country counting by hand every ballot and then all agreeing on a common total would suffice. And that would be impossible.
Hmm...lawyers don't earn their keep, they simply get overpaid...
Sure a few lawyers make millions, but most don't. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the median annual salary for all attorneys in the U.S. in 1996 to be $60,000. See http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm# earnings. I know a lot of.com folks who make a whole lot more than that for doing didlysquat. And how many.com folks are required to give away any of their workproduct for free? Most jurisdictions require lawyers to do pro bono work for the community or for the indigent. Most of my colleagues (yes, I too am an attorney, and I make less than the median salary) work their butts off (60 to 80 hour weeks are not uncommon) to help people defend their rights. Most of us are also saddled with student loans (the average loan load is $66,000, with monthly payments averaging $750 to $1000). See http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/stories/A5219-1999Sep7.html.
If you really think we are overpaid, then the next time some large corporation hauls you into court over something you have posted on the web, you just go ahead and defend yourself. And don't blame the corporation's lawyers either, slimy as they may be...blame the corporate management who instructed them to do it, and the shareholders who elected the management to maximize profit above all else.
The legal system is just a reflection of the society it operates in. Greedy lawyers "harassing" people with lawsuits wouldn't be able to do it without greedy clients. A personal example: A relative of mine is a doctor. He constantly complains to me about "goddamn lawyers" driving up his malpractice insurance rates with their frivolous lawsuits. He was in a minor traffic accident that involved his car being hit from behind. His neck was sore (possible whiplash, but probably not). He immediately called me up and asked how much I thought he could get in a suit. I told him he could probably get any medical expenses and lost wages for any real injuries. He was really disappointed...he wanted "six or seven figures". Even when I pointed it out, he couldn't see that his attitude was one of the problems he had complained so vociferously about.
Lawyers and the law can do a lot of good. Without civil rights lawyers, schools, motels, and other public places would still be segregated. Without securities lawyers, corporate executives could manipulate insider information to make a killing in the stock market at the expense of the average investor. Without . . . well, you get the idea I'm sure.
Slashdot Mirror
Frickin' LASERS!
The Senate does not ratify a treaty. The Senate gives its advice and consent to the ratification of the treaty by the President. Once this happens, the President executes treaty ratification document, and sends it to the depository power for the treaty. The treaty depository can be a state party to the treaty or and international organization, such as the United Nations, the Organization of American States, the European Union, etc.
The Council of Europe is NOT the European Union! The EU is an organization whose members have given up some national sovereignty to form a quasi-confederation and whose goal is the unification of Europe. They are the "Europe of the 15 (for now)". The Council of Europe is a much larger body dedicated to promoting peace, human rights, and European culture. It is the "Europe of the 44" and includes Russia and all but one other "European" former Soviet states. The main difference between the two is that the 15 EU members have ceded portions of their national sovereignty to a supranational authority, while the 44 members of the CoE keep their sovereignty and merely agree to various treaties that the CoE has promulgated. The EU has the power to mandate that a member state change its national laws to conform to the EU rules; the CoE has no such power.
Why yes, IAAIL (I Am An International Lawyer)!
For beginners, I always recommend "SQL Queries for Mere Mortals" by Hernandez. Easy to understand and follow.
Absolutely! Thank you for saying what I was thinking!
If your area is like mine, what you most likely see is a school in a wealthy suburb, where property values are so high that poor people or even lower-middle class people can't afford to live there, with "a brand new multimillion dollar school facility being built and haggling being done over getting a pool." The other school is in a poorer, usually inner-city school district, with much lower property values, and thus, much less money. Maybe its time we set school funding on a state-wide basis rather than a district one and level the playing field.
Get a friggin' life! Some people have no sense of humor....just like the jackasses that changed the name of Dr. Dobb's Journal of Computer Calisthenics and Orthodontia into Dr. Dobbs Journal of Software Tools for the Professional Programmer. Sheeesh.
Wrong. The Japanese plans had armor, just not a lot of it. They did not "only have fuel for a one-way trip". They attacked in waves, each wave returning to the carriers when done. A few were crashed into things, but only after being so damaged that they were going to crash anyway. I think you are confusing the attack on Pearl with kamikaze attacks later in the war.
Mazel Tov!
Hmmmm. If not Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate, then maybe Sir Michael Carmichael Zutt....
You know, it would be nice if people actually knew what they were talking about before they started talking....
The UN Security Council is charged with "the maintenance of international peace and security." It is composed of 15 members, 5 of which are permanent (US, UK, France, Russia, China), and 10 of which are elected by the General Assembly with "due regard . . . to equitable geographic distribution." The 5 permanent members can veto any non-procedural resolution of the Council. This does not apply in any of the other major organs of the UN: the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, or the International Court of Justice. So you are wrong...the Big 5 cannot "veto whatever another country attempts to propose or pass in the UN."
You state that "The structure of the UN, particularly the Security Council, leave a lot to be desired." The structure was chosen to reflect reality. The painful experience of the League of Nations experiment taught that if you try to set up a "perfect, idyllic system", you get something that will not work. For the United Nations to work, the framers had to have great power "buy-in." The price of that buy-in was the veto. Without it, there would have been no United Nations.
Uhmmm. You seem to suggest that the Americans were cowering in the rear whilst the brave Brits were doing all the work in Operation Market Garden. Who was responsible for thinking up this grand plan and sending the British on what had to be one of the most poorly planned military missions in the war? Why Field Marshall Montgomery, of course. His ineptitude was responsible for putting those Brits, and the Americans who went with them, in mortal danger. As to Britain's contribution vis á vis the American's contribution to winning the war: Neither hold a candle to the Soviet's contribution. They tied down the creme of the German armed forces in large numbers, allowing the western allies to face better odds on the Continent. And frankly, without the Americans, the British would not have been able to do much at all to clear the Nazis out of Europe. Very little of our Army was left after the evacuation of Dunkirk. And without the American war plants turning out an ungodly amount of materiel, we would not have been able to equip the Army we had left. Now, as to Band of Brothers being "distorted"...it is the history of one company of American paratroopers. This may come as a surprise to the uneducated, but unit histories tend to emphasize what just that one unit did. Doh! They don't show what the U.S. Marines, or the Rangers, or the Navy, or the Canadians, or the Soviets, etc., did because they are not about those other units/services/nations!
Finally, as a British citizen living in the United States, I have to say that the American lack of geographical knowledge is not any worse than a lot of Europeans of my acquaintance. Most folks know the half of the hemisphere in which they live, but not a lot else. Sad.
A few things: Why has no bail been set?...probably because the prosecution convinced the judge that he was a significant flight risk. And frankly, he may be a flight risk. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a travesty that he is in jail at all. But given the normal standards used in a bail hearing, the judge is well within his/her rights to deny bail.
When is he going to be indicted by the grand jury?...you don't have to be indicted by a grand jury. Most criminal defendants are not. The prosecution files an "information" or a "criminal complaint" indicting you with the court, and the judge issues a bench warrant for your arrest.
BTW, we don't "routinely let murderers and rapists out on the street on unjustifiably puny bails." We let people who are accused of crimes out on bail if the judge does not believe that they have a high risk of flight or a high risk of danger to the community. That is because they are presumed to be innocent until they are proven guilty. Sometimes the system fails, but it usually does not.
He is being detained until he can be transferred to the Bay Area for trial in the U.S. District Court in SF. Once there, there will be a preliminary hearing and trial will be scheduled. He will probably be detained until after the conclusion of the trial. If found not guilty, he will then be freed. If found guilty he will be detained during any appeals, and unless the conviction is overturned, he will then be sentenced. That is how the system works.
You are not correct. In criminal law, every one, citizen or not, has the same rights under the Constitution. Immigration is a special case, and immigration proceedings are not criminal law--they are immigration law, concerned with whether or not an alien has entered or remains in the United States properly. A citizen is never subject to these proceedings.
The detention of aliens prior to their hearing is not a criminal detention, but an administrative detention. There is a difference. In an immigration proceeding, the question is whether or not someone will be allowed to stay in the country. In some cases (risk of flight, usually), the alien is detained until the hearing and/or appeals process concludes and they are deported or allowed to stay. In other cases, the alien is paroled pending the hearing. In a criminal hearing, the issue is whether or not you will be imprisoned, fined, or executed. All due process standards apply to all defendants in criminal cases.
No. The reason Nixon didn't challenge the Chicago precinct results (which were, uhm, *enhanced* by the Daley machine) is that downstate Illinois precincts, which were controlled by Republican machines, were also, uhm, *enhanced* by Nixon's folks. As were precincts in Indiana, which Nixon won. Nixon weighed the probable outcome of a massive recount/challenge and came to the conclusion that it wouldn't be worth it.
It is not "magical"...it is a lot of damned hard work by folks who are working their butts off. I know...I have been an Election Judge in Maryland. Do you know how many people would have to be in on a conspiracy? Let's see...
There are several ways of vote tabulation...automatic voting machines (you know, the ones with the levers and curtains), punchcard ballot machines, and computerized machines. I can only speak for the punchcard machine jurisdictions, but the procedure is similar for the others. This is what happens when you vote: Your punchcard is placed in a sealed box under the control of an election judge, who is appointed and sworn in by the state or county board of elections. There are usually two boxes for each precinct, an "AM box" and a "PM box". The boxes are transported (AM just afternoon and PM after the polling place closes) to the Board of Elections headquarters under the constant guard of the sworn election judge. The ballots are then counted using a card reader. This is done in the presence of observers from the candidates. The Chair of the Board of Elections certifies the results for the county to the State Board of Elections. The Chair of the State Board certifies the state results to the Secretary of State (the state Sec'y of State, not Madeline Albright....). In the case of the Presidential Election, the state Secretary of State swears in the Electors for the candidate that has won the popular vote of that state and gives them their official Commission. The Secretary of State certifies the state results and forwards the names of the duly elected Electors to the Archivist of the United States. The Electors meet in the State Capitol on the day set by Congress (the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December) and vote for the President and Vice-President. Their ballots are sealed and send to the President of the Senate (uhm... Al Gore), who on 6 January presides over a joint session of Congress where the ballots are unsealed, opened, and counted by hand (4 people, 2 appointed by the Senate and 2 by the House, get to do the actual counting). And that, Virginia, is how the President is elected.
All along the way, people who have sworn to be impartial, fair, etc., observe the process. In addition, observers from the candidates and parties watch the process. I suppose you could argue that all of them could be either in on the conspiracy or duped, but in that case, nothing less than every person in the country counting by hand every ballot and then all agreeing on a common total would suffice. And that would be impossible.
Hmm...lawyers don't earn their keep, they simply get overpaid...
Sure a few lawyers make millions, but most don't. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the median annual salary for all attorneys in the U.S. in 1996 to be $60,000. See http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm# earnings. I know a lot of .com folks who make a whole lot more than that for doing didlysquat. And how many .com folks are required to give away any of their workproduct for free? Most jurisdictions require lawyers to do pro bono work for the community or for the indigent. Most of my colleagues (yes, I too am an attorney, and I make less than the median salary) work their butts off (60 to 80 hour weeks are not uncommon) to help people defend their rights. Most of us are also saddled with student loans (the average loan load is $66,000, with monthly payments averaging $750 to $1000). See http://www.lawnewsnetwork .com/stories/A5219-1999Sep7.html.
If you really think we are overpaid, then the next time some large corporation hauls you into court over something you have posted on the web, you just go ahead and defend yourself. And don't blame the corporation's lawyers either, slimy as they may be...blame the corporate management who instructed them to do it, and the shareholders who elected the management to maximize profit above all else.
The legal system is just a reflection of the society it operates in. Greedy lawyers "harassing" people with lawsuits wouldn't be able to do it without greedy clients. A personal example: A relative of mine is a doctor. He constantly complains to me about "goddamn lawyers" driving up his malpractice insurance rates with their frivolous lawsuits. He was in a minor traffic accident that involved his car being hit from behind. His neck was sore (possible whiplash, but probably not). He immediately called me up and asked how much I thought he could get in a suit. I told him he could probably get any medical expenses and lost wages for any real injuries. He was really disappointed...he wanted "six or seven figures". Even when I pointed it out, he couldn't see that his attitude was one of the problems he had complained so vociferously about.
Lawyers and the law can do a lot of good. Without civil rights lawyers, schools, motels, and other public places would still be segregated. Without securities lawyers, corporate executives could manipulate insider information to make a killing in the stock market at the expense of the average investor. Without . . . well, you get the idea I'm sure.