What it's really about is permitting non-citizens to vote, and encouraging them to vote democrat.
Wait, what? How are non-citizens getting voter registration cards? If a non-citizen can register to vote, how would requiring a state ID change anything?
Fine, fine, you're right. I was just in a bad mood, and decided to provoke some/. wrath for the hell of it
I just generally think using a semi-auto to hunt is unsportsmanlike. Where I live (Germany), you can hunt with a semi-auto, but you're limited to a two round magazine.
... but can't buy or own ammo for their rifle unless they're at the range, and they have to use it there. They also can't carry the rifle around unless they're on the way to the range or some militia training exercise.
I don't think you can order firearms delivered to your home over the internet, even in 'merica. I think they must be shipped to a licensed dealer, from whom you can pick them up.
The point is that Congress can't make laws which violate the Bill of Rights.
If the President can be shown to have broken the law, you can also lobby Congress to impeach him and remove him from office.
As you're coming to realize though, it's a tricky situation when you're trying to punish the enforcer of law for violating the law.
Just like if you found out your local Sheriff was breaking the law, the situation is tricky. The problem is, with the Sheriff, you can always go to his superior. The President has no superior, so there really is nobody you can go to. Congress has the power to impeach, but other then that, there really isn't much one can do.
Ultimately, the chain of command has to have a top, and in the USA, that's the President. He's not above the law per se (since he can be impeached), but since he's the ultimate enforcer of law, he has to be pretty damned close.
If he's breaking a law, you can get your representative to impeach him. You can vote for somebody else (though there's no guarantee the other candidate won't also break the law). You can try to get your state to make warrant-less wiretapping on in-state communications illegal.
In this particular case, you could get Congress to waive sovereign immunity for breaking the law on collecting information, ie, change the fact that
"Under this scheme, Al-Haramain can bring a suit for damages against the United States for use of the collected information, but cannot bring suit against the government for collection of the information itself"
You just can't bring suit against the President, under current law, in a Federal (or State) court.
Apparently he does, because he has in this very case. I don't see how you can deny this.
You're not seeing it because you don't want to. All the court said was that a private citizen cannot bring suit against the President for breaking the law.
That doesn't mean Congress can't impeach him for breaking the law. It also doesn't mean that laws can't be found unconstitutional. It just means the President cannot be brought to court by a citizen for breaking the law.
Also, just as a side note, if you read the article it says :
Subsequently, Congress authorized Bush’s spy program in 2008, five years after the illegal wiretapping involved in this case.
So, two things.
1. The charges in this case would be against Bush, not Obama (if a citizen had standing to sue the President).
2. This is actually legal now anyways, and will continue be legal until someone gets the Supreme Court to overturn the wiretapping program.
Which, as stated earlier, would ACTUALLY be the what is unconstitutional in all this mess, since the Constitution does not give the Courts the power to declare laws unconstitutional.
That's just not true. The President does not have the power to overturn the Constitution. Private citizens simply cannot bring suit against the President for enforcement of laws which violate the Constitution. What can be brought before the court is the determination of whether or not a law itself is Constitutional.
In fact, if we're going to get all strict about what is Constitutional, then the Supreme Court doesn't even have the power to determine if laws are Constitutional or not. Take a good look, there's nothing in the Constitution which delegates this power to the Courts. The court simply assumed this power, and nobody has really done anything about it.
Simply put, there is nothing in the Constitution which denies Sovereign Immunity.
You can challenge a law in court, but you cannot bring suit against the President for enforcing a law. This is the only way that any of this works.
If private citizens could bring suit against the President and won, who would enforce the decision if he refused to comply? The army that he is Commander in Chief of?
If the courts could convict the President, wouldn't that give them the power to remove the President from power (since you can't be President from a prison cell)? Isn't the power to impeach very specifically given to the Legislative branch?
The courts can strike down all the laws they want, but what is a citizen to do when the Feds violate the constitution?
Vote them out of power, the way the system was designed. The President can't govern if he's constantly being brought into court by private citizens who don't agree with his decisions.
Well, the courts can certainly convict persons who make up the government, including the President.
Actually, no, a private citizen cannot bring suit against the President. This would be silly... the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Who is going to enforce a decision against him if he refuses to comply?
There's a reason the power to impeach is specifically given to the Legislative branch in the Constitution. If the President wasn't given sovereign immunity, the Judicial branch would ALSO have the power to impeach (since a President can't very well "preside" from a prison cell).
The difference is nobody is lying to you and saying that the meat in that beef hot dog is angus steak.
With the loans they were giving packages of shit loans AAA ratings. That's clearly fraud, and yet afaik, nobody has been charged with fraud. In fact, afaik, there's nothing that prevents the same thing from happening again.
It's not a new development by any stretch of the imagination. The first court case establishing sovereign immunity in the US was Chisholm v. Georgia, in 1793. That's right, three years after the Constitution was ratified.
Think about it some, who enforces the decisions of Federal courts? The Federal government. So if you brought suit against the Federal government and won, who would enforce the decision? The Feds?? You're asking the government to arrest themselves... which can't be done. You would have to make a new federal government to arrest the old one.
That would mean the courts have the power to overthrow the Federal government, which they don't.
The US government has always had sovereign immunity.
Immunity of the United States From Suit.—Pursuant to the general rule that a sovereign cannot be sued in its own courts, it follows that the judicial power does not extend to suits against the United States unless Congress by general or special enactment consents to suits against the Government. This rule first emanated in embryo form in an obiter dictum by Chief Justice Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia, where he indicated that a suit would not lie against the United States because “there is no power which the courts can call to their aid.”858 In Cohens v. Virginia,859 also by way of dictum, Chief Justice Marshal asserted, “the universally received opinion is that no suit can be commenced or prosecuted against the United States.” The issue was more directly in question in United States v. Clarke,860 where Chief Justice Marshall stated that as the United States is “not suable of common right, the party who institutes such suit must bring his case within the authority of some act of Congress, or the court cannot exercise jurisdiction over it.” He thereupon ruled that the act of May 26, 1830, for the final settlement of land claims in Florida condoned the suit. The doctrine of the exemption of the United States from suit was repeated in various subsequent cases, without discussion or examina[p.747]tion.861 Indeed, it was not until United States v. Lee862 that the Court examined the rule and the reasons for it, and limited its application accordingly.
That's the point, the government cannot be sued directly by a citizen, since the government has sovereign immunity.
The court is merely saying that unless the government explicitly decides to waive sovereign immunity, they cannot be sued. The courts do not decide when sovereign immunity has been waived, that is left up to the legislative or executive. This has always been the case in the USA.
Because it should be fraud to make a bunch of bad loans, package them together, give them a high rating, and then sell them to the government (or anybody).
If I take droppings from a bunch of individual chickens, put them together, cook them a little, and then sell them as "Chicken derived high-fiber compound", I can't very well lie to you and tell you that I'm not selling you shit.
If I host a message board, I am responsible for policing its content. I must at least show that I have made a reasonable effort to ensure that illegal content isn't being posted. What constitutes a reasonable effort will vary by jurisdiction and court-room.
If people are coordinating criminal activity on my message board, you can be damned sure the police are going to be mighty interested in talking to me.
Actually, they're more of a publishing and advertising medium. You can use them for communication (ie sending private messages), but you can't compare hosting a public message on a social website to telephone communications. By that logic you could say television broadcasters are protected by the same common-carrier rules as telephone companies. That's just ridiculous.
I know you're being facetious, but for many it might be a tough choice. Bankrupt your family by living through expensive treatment, or die and give them a good chunk of money from life insurance...
Besides, that doesn't have to be the choice. It could be "still be alive in five years AND have health insurance".
Slashdot Mirror
What it's really about is permitting non-citizens to vote, and encouraging them to vote democrat.
Wait, what? How are non-citizens getting voter registration cards? If a non-citizen can register to vote, how would requiring a state ID change anything?
Right now in the USA there are close to 3 million dead people who are registered to vote and voting
That's the kind of claim that needs a citation.
You'll never, ever guess which party they overwhelmingly vote for. That's right... Democrats.
Good thing I wouldn't have to guess, if you would provide a citation.
Wtf, why is someone making 10k€ a year wearing 200€ shoes??
I just generally think using a semi-auto to hunt is unsportsmanlike. Where I live (Germany), you can hunt with a semi-auto, but you're limited to a two round magazine.
I can respect that, but it still seems rather unnecessary.
... but can't buy or own ammo for their rifle unless they're at the range, and they have to use it there. They also can't carry the rifle around unless they're on the way to the range or some militia training exercise.
I stand by the argument that hunting with a semi-auto is unsportsmanlike. Why not learn to shoot so you don't have to spray lead all over the forest?
I don't think you can order firearms delivered to your home over the internet, even in 'merica. I think they must be shipped to a licensed dealer, from whom you can pick them up.
Hunting with a semi-auto is so goddamn unsportsmanlike... What kind of asshole kills deer with an AR-15?
What's the point of having a Bill of Rights then
The point is that Congress can't make laws which violate the Bill of Rights.
If the President can be shown to have broken the law, you can also lobby Congress to impeach him and remove him from office.
As you're coming to realize though, it's a tricky situation when you're trying to punish the enforcer of law for violating the law.
Just like if you found out your local Sheriff was breaking the law, the situation is tricky. The problem is, with the Sheriff, you can always go to his superior. The President has no superior, so there really is nobody you can go to. Congress has the power to impeach, but other then that, there really isn't much one can do.
Ultimately, the chain of command has to have a top, and in the USA, that's the President. He's not above the law per se (since he can be impeached), but since he's the ultimate enforcer of law, he has to be pretty damned close.
In this particular case, you could get Congress to waive sovereign immunity for breaking the law on collecting information, ie, change the fact that
"Under this scheme, Al-Haramain can bring a suit for damages against the United States for use of the collected information, but cannot bring suit against the government for collection of the information itself"
You just can't bring suit against the President, under current law, in a Federal (or State) court.
Apparently he does, because he has in this very case. I don't see how you can deny this.
You're not seeing it because you don't want to. All the court said was that a private citizen cannot bring suit against the President for breaking the law.
That doesn't mean Congress can't impeach him for breaking the law. It also doesn't mean that laws can't be found unconstitutional. It just means the President cannot be brought to court by a citizen for breaking the law.
Also, just as a side note, if you read the article it says :
Subsequently, Congress authorized Bush’s spy program in 2008, five years after the illegal wiretapping involved in this case.
So, two things.
1. The charges in this case would be against Bush, not Obama (if a citizen had standing to sue the President).
2. This is actually legal now anyways, and will continue be legal until someone gets the Supreme Court to overturn the wiretapping program.
Which, as stated earlier, would ACTUALLY be the what is unconstitutional in all this mess, since the Constitution does not give the Courts the power to declare laws unconstitutional.
Your recourse against this is voting.
In fact, if we're going to get all strict about what is Constitutional, then the Supreme Court doesn't even have the power to determine if laws are Constitutional or not. Take a good look, there's nothing in the Constitution which delegates this power to the Courts. The court simply assumed this power, and nobody has really done anything about it.
Simply put, there is nothing in the Constitution which denies Sovereign Immunity.
If private citizens could bring suit against the President and won, who would enforce the decision if he refused to comply? The army that he is Commander in Chief of?
If the courts could convict the President, wouldn't that give them the power to remove the President from power (since you can't be President from a prison cell)? Isn't the power to impeach very specifically given to the Legislative branch?
The courts can strike down all the laws they want, but what is a citizen to do when the Feds violate the constitution?
Vote them out of power, the way the system was designed. The President can't govern if he's constantly being brought into court by private citizens who don't agree with his decisions.
Well, the courts can certainly convict persons who make up the government, including the President.
Actually, no, a private citizen cannot bring suit against the President. This would be silly... the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Who is going to enforce a decision against him if he refuses to comply?
There's a reason the power to impeach is specifically given to the Legislative branch in the Constitution. If the President wasn't given sovereign immunity, the Judicial branch would ALSO have the power to impeach (since a President can't very well "preside" from a prison cell).
With the loans they were giving packages of shit loans AAA ratings. That's clearly fraud, and yet afaik, nobody has been charged with fraud. In fact, afaik, there's nothing that prevents the same thing from happening again.
Think about it some, who enforces the decisions of Federal courts? The Federal government. So if you brought suit against the Federal government and won, who would enforce the decision? The Feds?? You're asking the government to arrest themselves... which can't be done. You would have to make a new federal government to arrest the old one.
That would mean the courts have the power to overthrow the Federal government, which they don't.
The US government has always had sovereign immunity.
Immunity of the United States From Suit.—Pursuant to the general rule that a sovereign cannot be sued in its own courts, it follows that the judicial power does not extend to suits against the United States unless Congress by general or special enactment consents to suits against the Government. This rule first emanated in embryo form in an obiter dictum by Chief Justice Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia, where he indicated that a suit would not lie against the United States because “there is no power which the courts can call to their aid.”858 In Cohens v. Virginia,859 also by way of dictum, Chief Justice Marshal asserted, “the universally received opinion is that no suit can be commenced or prosecuted against the United States.” The issue was more directly in question in United States v. Clarke,860 where Chief Justice Marshall stated that as the United States is “not suable of common right, the party who institutes such suit must bring his case within the authority of some act of Congress, or the court cannot exercise jurisdiction over it.” He thereupon ruled that the act of May 26, 1830, for the final settlement of land claims in Florida condoned the suit. The doctrine of the exemption of the United States from suit was repeated in various subsequent cases, without discussion or examina[p.747]tion.861 Indeed, it was not until United States v. Lee862 that the Court examined the rule and the reasons for it, and limited its application accordingly.
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereign_immunity/
The court is merely saying that unless the government explicitly decides to waive sovereign immunity, they cannot be sued. The courts do not decide when sovereign immunity has been waived, that is left up to the legislative or executive. This has always been the case in the USA.
If I take droppings from a bunch of individual chickens, put them together, cook them a little, and then sell them as "Chicken derived high-fiber compound", I can't very well lie to you and tell you that I'm not selling you shit.
If people are coordinating criminal activity on my message board, you can be damned sure the police are going to be mighty interested in talking to me.
This is exactly what happened in the most recent Eurocup. National football associations were fined for the behavior (hate speech) of their fans.
Social web sites are a communication medium.
Actually, they're more of a publishing and advertising medium. You can use them for communication (ie sending private messages), but you can't compare hosting a public message on a social website to telephone communications. By that logic you could say television broadcasters are protected by the same common-carrier rules as telephone companies. That's just ridiculous.
Besides, that doesn't have to be the choice. It could be "still be alive in five years AND have health insurance".