I am wounded to the core that you don't think I am an attorney.
Just please don't try representing yourself in court. Believe me, I am doing you a big favor by telling you this. Consider it free legal advice.
It's pretty sad that normal relatively non-crazy people have come to accept this view of legal interpretation, when it is so severely fucked up.
What is sad is people who don't understand basic Constitutional principles sneering at those who do. In addition, it is not viewed as a "legal interpretation," but a "legal finding." That means it is a combination of the facts in evidence, and the law. Appellate law addresses laws in controversy, by definition. A jury, which is *the* fact-finding body, cannot find a law un-Constitutional, or wrongly interpreted. But if one decides to appeal to an appellate court for a determination, the appeals court must focus on the law and precedent only, and may not refute the jury's finding of facts. YANAL, but I am.
First, it's fucked up because it incorporates a totalitarian assumption is that every possible circumstance should be governed by law, and that whenever someting happens that isn't covered by law it must have been some sort of oversight that should immediately be rectified.
First, it's fucked up because you obviously don't understand what the word "totalitarian" means. It has nothing to do with what you are talking about. I do believe you are confusing "totalitarian" with "authoritarian." A common misinterpretation.
Secondly, *everything* is covered by the law in the US. That is the foundational principle of the country. You might want to take a Constitutional law course, and brush up, so you can stop pulling stuff out of your ass.
It is impossible for legislators to foresee every possible variation of crime or tort that falls under a new statute. For instance, it can be very difficult to determine if a burglary has taken place, even though the words on their face are clear. That is when the Judiciary steps in, to determine the intent of a statute, and whether or not a statute is valid in the first place
Second, it's fucked up because it implies an unthinking acceptance of retrospective law. When judges make up new rules and apply them to the case at hand they are *always* applying those rules retrospectively.
Your argument would stand on firmer ground if you knew the correct terms of art. RETROACTIVE, not retrospective. Geez. That is pretty rudimentary. And you are just wrong, whether you use the correct word or not.
Under this sort of view it doesn't matter what you do, even if the law makes no mention of it now, when you get hauled off to court suitable rules will be made up to cover whatever it was you did.
Do you even understand how statutory law works? The final interpretation of a law under which someone has been convicted, and then appealed, is already in existence. Therefore, it is not ex post facto (another term of art that I believe you misunderstand, and one I think you were confusing with "retrospective" (sic)). An Ex Post Facto law is one made up *specifically* to criminalize an act AFTER the act has been committed. It is not just an appellate determination that doesn't go the way the plaintiff may wish.
First of all, not being a moron, I don't run AV software on either my PC or my Mac, because I don't need it. I use common sense. I have never downloaded a virus or worm.
Secondly, the reason your previous post struck the prior poster as a general attack on the rich is due to your rather ungrammatical sentence "Targeting some of the richest and yet least security-aware computer users could be a very profitable niche indeed." First of all, there is no grammatical conjunction "and yet." This makes the literal meaning of your sentence unclear. If you meant "richest and least security-aware," it could be arguing you are speaking about a Venn's diagram of Mac users. If you meant "richest yet least security-aware," your sentence is in fact an attack on people who are better off than you, as you are implying an inverse ratio between wealth and security-awareness.
Not to mention your "profitable niche indeed" line clearly smacks of anticipatory schadenfreude.
That is a good idea in theory, but she's a really, really dumb dog. I work with dogs, and even the other trainers admit, she's cute, but reactive, and a dumb blonde. Plus, she is a breed that is supposed to be a watch dog, so it isn't totally surprising.
Why don't you actually do some reading. There is more and more evidence that homosexuality is, in fact, genetically based.
The AMA, the APA, and the APS published a joint paper many years ago (1999) asserting that homosexuality is a normal variant in human sexual behavior. Do you have the evidence to refute them? Didn't think so.
You need to read that more closely. First of all, the original French did refer to the bundle of sticks used to burn heretics, and guess what, "sodomites" were considered heretics. French homosexuals have just as many nerve endings as English ones. The fact that English executions were different doesn't change the basic etymology of the word.
Yes. And slavery was pretty much accepted by, oh, most of the whole world at one point as well. Great argument.
Not to mention, you don't seem to know much about Native American, Sub-Saharan, or Ancient Greek culture. But I guess that doesn't count as part of the world.
But that's not correct usage of the word. A phobia is not a hatred, it's a fear; a paralyzing fear of something, one so great that it's debilitating.
Whatever else you wish to say about opponents of homosexuality, they don't have a phobia.
And yes, Xenophobia is another made-up word in this sense. If someone balled up in a corner in stark terror when a foreigner walked in, then yes, they'd have a phobia. If they just hated the guy, that's not the same thing.
Another issue where this ridiculous phobia meme is being used... "Islamophobia".
You are confusing homophobia's etymology with its definition. Homophobia has long had a psychiatric connotation, in the context of latent homosexuality. I am not a psychiatrist, but was raised by a psychiatrist who was a contributor to the DSM III and IV, and wrote my thesis on cultural attitudes and psychiatry. Homophobia is *often* (but not always) a fear directed at the realization that one might be a member of the maligned group, not at the group itself. The fact that it is not always a factor does not mean that it is not ever a factor. And the gusto with which you protest is certainly of note.
The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on *gender* not sexual orientation. I advocate for the expansion of the Act to GLBT individuals, but right now, they are not covered, except for sexual harassment claims.
A private *club* that has membership fees can discriminate. The interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution forbids discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin, at any business, without a compelling state interest. However, they would probably throw you out for being an asshole, which is not a protected class. Unfortunately, thanks to charmers such as yourself, and many of the other Anonymous Cowards, GLBT individuals are not yet covered by the law.
So which all white country club do you belong to, Senator?
wow, especially being an Anonymous Coward, this makes you sound really concrete. oh well, what to expect from people who either intentionally or unwittingly are unable to understand sarcasm, and firmly believe that their personal biases apply to the population of an entire country.
That's not fair. American conservatism has a proud tradition of carefully defining itself and its deeply held ideological beliefs by whatever will piss off the other side. If the left would stop being enamored of free speech and freedom then the conservatives could snatch these concepts to back up their rhetoric about them and score some extra RP votes.
Well kinda sorta he had a function h valid for integers, and he wanted it to be valid for all rational numbers, so he just defined it as 0 everywhere else. Then he took a continuous and not a discrete Fourier transform of the resulting function, maybe getting an infinite series of coefficients that diverge. Of course keep in mind that I'm just talking out of my ass.
The 4th amendment: "Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I think it was beyond the comprehension of the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that science would develop the way it did. This was pre-Darwin. They had no idea that you could find out from a cigarette butt the exact person who smoked it. This is a good and bad thing. They also had no idea that you would be able to find out what drugs a person had ingested for up to 30 days previously.
I am not sure how that would have changed the wording of the amendment. I think that while forensic science can definitely be used for good, it can also be used as a form of government oppression. Witness: In Great Britain, it was considered legal for a town where a little girl had been raped and killed to subject every man in the town a dna test. This would NOT reach a level of "probable cause" that is traditionally considered consistent with the 4th amendment, and no town in the US could require a similar thing. And I say that is how it should be.
But, if they find a guy with a bloody knife stumbling down the same street as a stabbing victim, with the skin of her attacker under her fingernails, I think that is a reasonable search, and use of forensic science.
On the other hand, I think it is a HIGHLY questionable practice to have blanket urine tests in order to get employment, pretending that a) your behavior off hours is legally within their scrutiny, and b) failing to acknowlege that while you could be tested for illegal drugs, you could also be tested for legal drugs, to see if you are pregnant, have heart disease, a psychiatric illness, or other medical information that is explicitly privileged by law.
"I find it amusing that you spout things like you know it but then fail to prove that and actually damage your case with the more you write. No one suspended habeas corpus. You are just repeating the wording from sites apposed to the action that was taken."
Believe me, your grammar and spelling are far more amusing. Which action would that be, since "[n]o one suspended habeas corpus?"
" Habeas corpus in the US is not specifically guaranteed to foreigners but had been extended by law."
Yes, true. However, the law to which you refer is called the US Constitution. Historically, all persons on US soil, whether or not they were citizens, were covered by it. I understand that a proud know-nothing such as yourself finds that quaint, because "9/11 changed everything." But prior to the current administration, that is how things worked.
"Now under certain situations, that law doesn't necessarily apply as long as the military gives them the ability to show their innocence. This is no in any way a suspension of habeas corpus."
Now in certain situations, I might try to untangle the many syntactical and legal errors you made in those sentences. But as you are not paying me for my time, I will merely point out to you that it is a fundamental principle of US law that no one has to "show their innocence," but must actually be proven guilty in a court. You see, the burden of proof is not on the "foreigner," but the so-called "Military Commission." This is pretty basic civics, so I don't feel like I am giving away too much of my time.
And Habeas Corpus does not apply to the burden of proof. So I am not even sure why you are talking about it.
"....What is clearly insulting is how this situation is percieved by people who really don't have a clue as much as an agenda."
I am still unclear as to what "situation" you are referring. That might give me a clue, which would help me not to have an agenda. And I am glad you are clearly insulted, and not just insulted; it must be hard to live in your confused world.
"Your either convinced that the misconceived ways you spouted are fact or you are blindly following someone who has this problem"
Yes, blindly following Jefferson, Madison, et al.
"This is why politics don't have a place on a site for geeks, it shows how ungeeky you are by your refusal to at least look to the truth."
You see, this is why politics are in the state they are in the US. There is *no place* that isn't the right place for "politics." "Politics" affects every aspect of your existence, especially when you, even as a US citizen, can be legally detained without charges for any length of time. Jose Padilla is a US citizen, who was arrested on US soil. "Yes, but he is a criminal, " I hear you say. What you fail to appreciate is that the law applies to everyone, good guys and bad guys. That is what "Rule of Law" means. I know, how utterly fair and boring.
"Go ahead and believe the lies you have been told. Go ahead and build up misplaces rage and anger. IT doesn't matter much to me, like I said before. I find it amusing."
Please look up the psychological term "projection." Thank you.
Bullshit. It was a scrupulously fair trial, in which the defendant was not only able to defend himself, but even able to bully the judge, throw tantrums, preach at the cameras and try to intimidate the witnesses against him. Hell, he even got to employ attorneys with the proceeds of his decades of kleptocracy.
All of which reinforces, rather than undermines, the premise that this was a show trial. Ever hear of Due Process? Where was the substantive due process in this trial?
The US forces insisted on the trial; if the Iraqis, Iranians, or Kuwaitis had their way, he would have been dispatched as quickly and efficiently as Ceacescu or Mussolini.
Once again, reinforcing the kangaroo court aspect of this. What right did US forces have to make judicial decisions on behalf of a sovereign government and people as to how they should dispose of their despots? This is the whole weakness underlying the Iraq invasion. When Ceaucescu and Mussolini were "dispatched," it was done by fellow countrymen without a superpower breathing down their necks telling them how to proceed.
The correct way to proceed with this was to bring charges against him through the Hague; instead, the entire world views this as further evidence of the U.S.'s lawlessness.
If the accused can attend the hearing and present evidence in his defense before the judge, due process is satisfied so the above argument will be moot. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other part of the constitution this law would violate, but I haven't take con law yet so it's possible.
First of all, do you understand what due process is? You are confusing substantive and procedural due process.
Secondly, why are you claiming legal expertise on Constitutional issues when you haven't taken Constitutional law? My immediate impression was that your law school sucked, but now I realize it is that you wanted to brag about being in law school, and this was the best way you could come up with.
AC, your explanation of Marbury v.Madison is totally wack. I even double-checked my constitutional law outlines, and the holdings of the case. But you are all over the goddamn place, so it is hard to respond with a coherent argument.
The main holdings of Marbury v. Madison are that: 1) The Constitution establishes the fundamental and paramount law. Therefore, any act of the legislature that doesn't conform to it must be void by definition.
2) That the Judiciary is the ultimate interpretor of the Constitution and the law; if not, they would have to turn a blind eye to the legal
foundation of the United States, that is, the Constitution, everytime a law in conflict with it was created by the Legislature.
If you are claiming that who has final say as to Constitutionality is not mentioned in the Constitution, you are correct. But since it is
indeterminate, it was left up to the Judiciary to interpret what they felt the Constitution meant. Marshall made an assumption that the courts have the right to make the ultimate determination. But just as the Constitution doesn't name the Judiciary, nor does it name the other branches. There are practical reasons to think that Marshall's assumption was correct:
1) Federal judges, appointed for life, are free from day-to-day politicking (goes the story, at any rate).
2)The Legislature represents the majority, but the Constitution is designed to protect the minority, therefore it makes sense that intepretation would not fall to the Legislature, the most political branch of the
government.
I have no idea where you got the idea that: "The initial view of how things would work is that determining what was and wasn't Constitutional woudl [sic] rest in all three branches of government (this was why Presidents before Andrew Jackson only vetoed bills they thought were unConstitutional: the original use of the veto power was for that purpose, and Jackson just decided he could veto bills he didn't like, and the language of the Constitution did not forbid it)."
If you are using Marbury as the foundation for this theory, you are pulling it out of thin air. I would like to know what text you are basing that on.
I forget the case, but bodily fluids, are excluded from 5th amendment protections. They can test your tears, semen, blood type, they can even remove bullets from your body surgically, without your consent, to be used at trial, as long as there is no "unreasonable" risk to the health or life of the defendant. I wish I could cite the case, but I learned it 15 years ago, and haven't practiced law in 10 years. I was a criminal defense attorney too, so this case really irritated me, it seemed so contradictory on its face. DNA can be derived from any of the above listed sources, so unfortunately, the 5th amendment argument won't hold up in court.
However, once there has been a determination of innocence, that is a totally different situation, and I don't really understand how they could be creating a database of innocent people's DNA without malign intent. I do believe that if this were litigated, it might fall under the Constitutional right to privacy, however. Below is part of a very old slashdot post I wrote discussing constitutional privacy rights in relationship to DARPA and Choicepoint's databases of personal information:
"The right to privacy was one of those unspoken, but widely accepted theories of British Common Law. But with the publication and ratification of the US Constitution, many areas of Common Law became statutory. Nowadays, the right to privacy is a statutory one, carved out of the intersection of individual rights derived from the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. For instance, the 5th amendment gives you the right not to self-incriminate, the 4th gives you protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the 14th and 6th amendments insure that you have due process rights (although this seems to fly over the head of the Bush Administration). In the middle of the 20th century, the USSC began to interpret the nexus of these rights as creating an area of individual activity that should be free from government interference. Some of the more famous cases, Griswold v. Connecticut and progeny, Roe v. Wade and progeny, found that while the right to privacy was not enumerated, it was implied, in the same way that if you say "I consult with my attorney Monday through Sunday," you have implied that you also talk to your attorney Tuesday, Wednesday, etc.
Santorum and his ilk, who claim to be strict constructionists, want you to believe a) that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly state a right, it doesn't exist, and b) the Constitution establishes a government to control and rule the citizenry. People like him are the most treacherous people in the US today. The stealth theory he is pushing with his obsessive comments on sexuality, is that individuals should have no input into their own governance, and that the government is an entity that has an obligation to control personal behavior, and also that it may push people around as it finds convenient.
However, strict constructionism is false on its face. The mechanism for the citizenry to amend the Constitution is written right into it. As can be seen in contemporaneous writings, it was obvious that members of the Convention expected, and even hoped, that the Constitution would not be a static document, but that it would be amended by The People through legal means, sometimes as Constitutional amendments, and often as the result of judicial challenges (to refute the concept of "activist judges"). Many members of the convention would be thrilled to see that there is no longer slavery in the US. This despite language in the Constitution explicitly discussing the international sale of slaves."
Slashdot Mirror
I am wounded to the core that you don't think I am an attorney. Just please don't try representing yourself in court. Believe me, I am doing you a big favor by telling you this. Consider it free legal advice.
P.S. There is no such thing as retrospective law.
It's pretty sad that normal relatively non-crazy people have come to accept this view of legal interpretation, when it is so severely fucked up.
What is sad is people who don't understand basic Constitutional principles sneering at those who do. In addition, it is not viewed as a "legal interpretation," but a "legal finding." That means it is a combination of the facts in evidence, and the law. Appellate law addresses laws in controversy, by definition. A jury, which is *the* fact-finding body, cannot find a law un-Constitutional, or wrongly interpreted. But if one decides to appeal to an appellate court for a determination, the appeals court must focus on the law and precedent only, and may not refute the jury's finding of facts. YANAL, but I am.
First, it's fucked up because it incorporates a totalitarian assumption is that every possible circumstance should be governed by law, and that whenever someting happens that isn't covered by law it must have been some sort of oversight that should immediately be rectified.
First, it's fucked up because you obviously don't understand what the word "totalitarian" means. It has nothing to do with what you are talking about. I do believe you are confusing "totalitarian" with "authoritarian." A common misinterpretation.
Secondly, *everything* is covered by the law in the US. That is the foundational principle of the country. You might want to take a Constitutional law course, and brush up, so you can stop pulling stuff out of your ass.
It is impossible for legislators to foresee every possible variation of crime or tort that falls under a new statute. For instance, it can be very difficult to determine if a burglary has taken place, even though the words on their face are clear. That is when the Judiciary steps in, to determine the intent of a statute, and whether or not a statute is valid in the first place
Second, it's fucked up because it implies an unthinking acceptance of retrospective law. When judges make up new rules and apply them to the case at hand they are *always* applying those rules retrospectively.
Your argument would stand on firmer ground if you knew the correct terms of art. RETROACTIVE, not retrospective. Geez. That is pretty rudimentary. And you are just wrong, whether you use the correct word or not.
Under this sort of view it doesn't matter what you do, even if the law makes no mention of it now, when you get hauled off to court suitable rules will be made up to cover whatever it was you did.
Do you even understand how statutory law works? The final interpretation of a law under which someone has been convicted, and then appealed, is already in existence. Therefore, it is not ex post facto (another term of art that I believe you misunderstand, and one I think you were confusing with "retrospective" (sic)). An Ex Post Facto law is one made up *specifically* to criminalize an act AFTER the act has been committed. It is not just an appellate determination that doesn't go the way the plaintiff may wish.
You are not thinking clearly.
Oops, that was me, I didn't mean to post as an AC
First of all, not being a moron, I don't run AV software on either my PC or my Mac, because I don't need it. I use common sense. I have never downloaded a virus or worm. Secondly, the reason your previous post struck the prior poster as a general attack on the rich is due to your rather ungrammatical sentence "Targeting some of the richest and yet least security-aware computer users could be a very profitable niche indeed." First of all, there is no grammatical conjunction "and yet." This makes the literal meaning of your sentence unclear. If you meant "richest and least security-aware," it could be arguing you are speaking about a Venn's diagram of Mac users. If you meant "richest yet least security-aware," your sentence is in fact an attack on people who are better off than you, as you are implying an inverse ratio between wealth and security-awareness. Not to mention your "profitable niche indeed" line clearly smacks of anticipatory schadenfreude.
That is a good idea in theory, but she's a really, really dumb dog. I work with dogs, and even the other trainers admit, she's cute, but reactive, and a dumb blonde. Plus, she is a breed that is supposed to be a watch dog, so it isn't totally surprising.
WHOOSH!
How would it know? The bud from 300 million years ago probably hadn't even evolved to be sticky.
Should you even be here? Slashdot is a FAMILY website. :)
Why don't you actually do some reading. There is more and more evidence that homosexuality is, in fact, genetically based. The AMA, the APA, and the APS published a joint paper many years ago (1999) asserting that homosexuality is a normal variant in human sexual behavior. Do you have the evidence to refute them? Didn't think so.
You need to read that more closely. First of all, the original French did refer to the bundle of sticks used to burn heretics, and guess what, "sodomites" were considered heretics. French homosexuals have just as many nerve endings as English ones. The fact that English executions were different doesn't change the basic etymology of the word.
Yes. And slavery was pretty much accepted by, oh, most of the whole world at one point as well. Great argument. Not to mention, you don't seem to know much about Native American, Sub-Saharan, or Ancient Greek culture. But I guess that doesn't count as part of the world.
But that's not correct usage of the word. A phobia is not a hatred, it's a fear; a paralyzing fear of something, one so great that it's debilitating.
Whatever else you wish to say about opponents of homosexuality, they don't have a phobia.
And yes, Xenophobia is another made-up word in this sense. If someone balled up in a corner in stark terror when a foreigner walked in, then yes, they'd have a phobia. If they just hated the guy, that's not the same thing.
Another issue where this ridiculous phobia meme is being used... "Islamophobia".
You are confusing homophobia's etymology with its definition. Homophobia has long had a psychiatric connotation, in the context of latent homosexuality. I am not a psychiatrist, but was raised by a psychiatrist who was a contributor to the DSM III and IV, and wrote my thesis on cultural attitudes and psychiatry. Homophobia is *often* (but not always) a fear directed at the realization that one might be a member of the maligned group, not at the group itself. The fact that it is not always a factor does not mean that it is not ever a factor. And the gusto with which you protest is certainly of note.
The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on *gender* not sexual orientation. I advocate for the expansion of the Act to GLBT individuals, but right now, they are not covered, except for sexual harassment claims.
A private *club* that has membership fees can discriminate. The interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution forbids discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin, at any business, without a compelling state interest. However, they would probably throw you out for being an asshole, which is not a protected class. Unfortunately, thanks to charmers such as yourself, and many of the other Anonymous Cowards, GLBT individuals are not yet covered by the law. So which all white country club do you belong to, Senator?
wow, especially being an Anonymous Coward, this makes you sound really concrete. oh well, what to expect from people who either intentionally or unwittingly are unable to understand sarcasm, and firmly believe that their personal biases apply to the population of an entire country.
That's not fair. American conservatism has a proud tradition of carefully defining itself and its deeply held ideological beliefs by whatever will piss off the other side. If the left would stop being enamored of free speech and freedom then the conservatives could snatch these concepts to back up their rhetoric about them and score some extra RP votes.
Well kinda sorta he had a function h valid for integers, and he wanted it to be valid for all rational numbers, so he just defined it as 0 everywhere else. Then he took a continuous and not a discrete Fourier transform of the resulting function, maybe getting an infinite series of coefficients that diverge. Of course keep in mind that I'm just talking out of my ass.
I agree and disagree with you.
The 4th amendment: "Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I think it was beyond the comprehension of the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that science would develop the way it did. This was pre-Darwin. They had no idea that you could find out from a cigarette butt the exact person who smoked it. This is a good and bad thing. They also had no idea that you would be able to find out what drugs a person had ingested for up to 30 days previously.
I am not sure how that would have changed the wording of the amendment. I think that while forensic science can definitely be used for good, it can also be used as a form of government oppression. Witness: In Great Britain, it was considered legal for a town where a little girl had been raped and killed to subject every man in the town a dna test. This would NOT reach a level of "probable cause" that is traditionally considered consistent with the 4th amendment, and no town in the US could require a similar thing. And I say that is how it should be.
But, if they find a guy with a bloody knife stumbling down the same street as a stabbing victim, with the skin of her attacker under her fingernails, I think that is a reasonable search, and use of forensic science.
On the other hand, I think it is a HIGHLY questionable practice to have blanket urine tests in order to get employment, pretending that a) your behavior off hours is legally within their scrutiny, and b) failing to acknowlege that while you could be tested for illegal drugs, you could also be tested for legal drugs, to see if you are pregnant, have heart disease, a psychiatric illness, or other medical information that is explicitly privileged by law.
"I find it amusing that you spout things like you know it but then fail to prove that and actually damage your case with the more you write. No one suspended habeas corpus. You are just repeating the wording from sites apposed to the action that was taken."
Believe me, your grammar and spelling are far more amusing. Which action would that be, since "[n]o one suspended habeas corpus?"
" Habeas corpus in the US is not specifically guaranteed to foreigners but had been extended by law."
Yes, true. However, the law to which you refer is called the US Constitution. Historically, all persons on US soil, whether or not they were citizens, were covered by it. I understand that a proud know-nothing such as yourself finds that quaint, because "9/11 changed everything." But prior to the current administration, that is how things worked.
"Now under certain situations, that law doesn't necessarily apply as long as the military gives them the ability to show their innocence. This is no in any way a suspension of habeas corpus."
Now in certain situations, I might try to untangle the many syntactical and legal errors you made in those sentences. But as you are not paying me for my time, I will merely point out to you that it is a fundamental principle of US law that no one has to "show their innocence," but must actually be proven guilty in a court. You see, the burden of proof is not on the "foreigner," but the so-called "Military Commission." This is pretty basic civics, so I don't feel like I am giving away too much of my time.
And Habeas Corpus does not apply to the burden of proof. So I am not even sure why you are talking about it.
"....What is clearly insulting is how this situation is percieved by people who really don't have a clue as much as an agenda."
I am still unclear as to what "situation" you are referring. That might give me a clue, which would help me not to have an agenda. And I am glad you are clearly insulted, and not just insulted; it must be hard to live in your confused world.
"Your either convinced that the misconceived ways you spouted are fact or you are blindly following someone who has this problem"
Yes, blindly following Jefferson, Madison, et al.
"This is why politics don't have a place on a site for geeks, it shows how ungeeky you are by your refusal to at least look to the truth."
You see, this is why politics are in the state they are in the US. There is *no place* that isn't the right place for "politics." "Politics" affects every aspect of your existence, especially when you, even as a US citizen, can be legally detained without charges for any length of time. Jose Padilla is a US citizen, who was arrested on US soil. "Yes, but he is a criminal, " I hear you say. What you fail to appreciate is that the law applies to everyone, good guys and bad guys. That is what "Rule of Law" means. I know, how utterly fair and boring.
"Go ahead and believe the lies you have been told. Go ahead and build up misplaces rage and anger. IT doesn't matter much to me, like I said before. I find it amusing."
Please look up the psychological term "projection." Thank you.
A woman can't be cuckolded. Learn English.
Bullshit. It was a scrupulously fair trial, in which the defendant was not only able to defend himself, but even able to bully the judge, throw tantrums, preach at the cameras and try to intimidate the witnesses against him. Hell, he even got to employ attorneys with the proceeds of his decades of kleptocracy.
All of which reinforces, rather than undermines, the premise that this was a show trial. Ever hear of Due Process? Where was the substantive due process in this trial?
The US forces insisted on the trial; if the Iraqis, Iranians, or Kuwaitis had their way, he would have been dispatched as quickly and efficiently as Ceacescu or Mussolini.
Once again, reinforcing the kangaroo court aspect of this. What right did US forces have to make judicial decisions on behalf of a sovereign government and people as to how they should dispose of their despots? This is the whole weakness underlying the Iraq invasion. When Ceaucescu and Mussolini were "dispatched," it was done by fellow countrymen without a superpower breathing down their necks telling them how to proceed.
The correct way to proceed with this was to bring charges against him through the Hague; instead, the entire world views this as further evidence of the U.S.'s lawlessness.
If the accused can attend the hearing and present evidence in his defense before the judge, due process is satisfied so the above argument will be moot. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other part of the constitution this law would violate, but I haven't take con law yet so it's possible.
First of all, do you understand what due process is? You are confusing substantive and procedural due process.
Secondly, why are you claiming legal expertise on Constitutional issues when you haven't taken Constitutional law? My immediate impression was that your law school sucked, but now I realize it is that you wanted to brag about being in law school, and this was the best way you could come up with.
AC, your explanation of Marbury v.Madison is totally wack. I even double-checked my constitutional law outlines, and the holdings of the case. But you are all over the goddamn place, so it is hard to respond with a coherent argument.
The main holdings of Marbury v. Madison are that:
1) The Constitution establishes the fundamental and paramount law. Therefore, any act of the legislature that doesn't conform to it must be void by definition.
2) That the Judiciary is the ultimate interpretor of the Constitution and the law; if not, they would have to turn a blind eye to the legal foundation of the United States, that is, the Constitution, everytime a law in conflict with it was created by the Legislature.
If you are claiming that who has final say as to Constitutionality is not mentioned in the Constitution, you are correct. But since it is indeterminate, it was left up to the Judiciary to interpret what they felt the Constitution meant. Marshall made an assumption that the courts have the right to make the ultimate determination. But just as the Constitution doesn't name the Judiciary, nor does it name the other branches. There are practical reasons to think that Marshall's assumption was correct:
1) Federal judges, appointed for life, are free from day-to-day politicking (goes the story, at any rate).
2)The Legislature represents the majority, but the Constitution is designed to protect the minority, therefore it makes sense that intepretation would not fall to the Legislature, the most political branch of the government.
I have no idea where you got the idea that: "The initial view of how things would work is that determining what was and wasn't Constitutional woudl [sic] rest in all three branches of government (this was why Presidents before Andrew Jackson only vetoed bills they thought were unConstitutional: the original use of the veto power was for that purpose, and Jackson just decided he could veto bills he didn't like, and the language of the Constitution did not forbid it)."
If you are using Marbury as the foundation for this theory, you are pulling it out of thin air. I would like to know what text you are basing that on.
All right. Please explain to me how what he says does not comport with Marbury v. Madison. For instance.
I forget the case, but bodily fluids, are excluded from 5th amendment protections. They can test your tears, semen, blood type, they can even remove bullets from your body surgically, without your consent, to be used at trial, as long as there is no "unreasonable" risk to the health or life of the defendant. I wish I could cite the case, but I learned it 15 years ago, and haven't practiced law in 10 years. I was a criminal defense attorney too, so this case really irritated me, it seemed so contradictory on its face. DNA can be derived from any of the above listed sources, so unfortunately, the 5th amendment argument won't hold up in court. However, once there has been a determination of innocence, that is a totally different situation, and I don't really understand how they could be creating a database of innocent people's DNA without malign intent. I do believe that if this were litigated, it might fall under the Constitutional right to privacy, however. Below is part of a very old slashdot post I wrote discussing constitutional privacy rights in relationship to DARPA and Choicepoint's databases of personal information:
"The right to privacy was one of those unspoken, but widely accepted theories of British Common Law. But with the publication and ratification of the US Constitution, many areas of Common Law became statutory. Nowadays, the right to privacy is a statutory one, carved out of the intersection of individual rights derived from the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. For instance, the 5th amendment gives you the right not to self-incriminate, the 4th gives you protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the 14th and 6th amendments insure that you have due process rights (although this seems to fly over the head of the Bush Administration). In the middle of the 20th century, the USSC began to interpret the nexus of these rights as creating an area of individual activity that should be free from government interference. Some of the more famous cases, Griswold v. Connecticut and progeny, Roe v. Wade and progeny, found that while the right to privacy was not enumerated, it was implied, in the same way that if you say "I consult with my attorney Monday through Sunday," you have implied that you also talk to your attorney Tuesday, Wednesday, etc.
Santorum and his ilk, who claim to be strict constructionists, want you to believe a) that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly state a right, it doesn't exist, and b) the Constitution establishes a government to control and rule the citizenry. People like him are the most treacherous people in the US today. The stealth theory he is pushing with his obsessive comments on sexuality, is that individuals should have no input into their own governance, and that the government is an entity that has an obligation to control personal behavior, and also that it may push people around as it finds convenient.
However, strict constructionism is false on its face. The mechanism for the citizenry to amend the Constitution is written right into it. As can be seen in contemporaneous writings, it was obvious that members of the Convention expected, and even hoped, that the Constitution would not be a static document, but that it would be amended by The People through legal means, sometimes as Constitutional amendments, and often as the result of judicial challenges (to refute the concept of "activist judges"). Many members of the convention would be thrilled to see that there is no longer slavery in the US. This despite language in the Constitution explicitly discussing the international sale of slaves."
Sorry to join in so late!