Permanent residents have largely the same protections and rights as citizens.
"...have largely the same protections..." is the key phrase here. The government could very easily take those rights and protections away, however I think the uproar that would come from the citizens prevents the government from doing this.
I don't believe every country should adopt the U.S. people's views or way of governing, however, I do not like the fact that my government would promote differing views that go against the basic ideals that our country was founded. Hence, my "disgusting" comment in regards to a treaty that would force citizens of another country to house our soldiers.
My understanding is that because the U.S. did agree, than they could argue to keep it confidential in our courts because of this section of the treaty.
Yes, the government did not have to agree and if they had not at the beginning, there would be no standing in the court to keep it confidential.
Furthermore, as long as the other parties involved say "we want this information kept confidential" and because the U.S. agreed to do this at the beginning, there really isn't anything our courts can do about it (again, because of this section of the treaty). UNLESS, it involves an United States citizen. Then it is a whole different ball game.
I agree with your assessment about the War on Drugs and Terror being used to chip away at our rights. I also am sickened by the fact that I am actually defending the government on this case because of my understanding of International Law and the U.S. system of law. I want to make it clear that I think what my government is doing is morally wrong, but perfectly legal. To me, that makes this one sad case.
P.S. Thanks for checking up on me on the grammar.;)
If the government signs a treaty with France (as an example) that states that their citizens must house our soldiers it is perfectly legal. Disgusting, but totally legal.
What is interesting about this case is that if this would have happened here, it would be a total violation of several articles of the Constiution, but because it happened overseas, with no U.S. citizen involved (so far), well, the only thing that applies is the treaty.
Originally, yes you are exactly correct. However, after the Civil War, Article 14 was added to the Consitution which basically reads that the States can not make laws that messes with the Constiution. Section 1 of the article (in part) reads: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor denyu to any person within its jurisdiction the eqwual protection of laws."
This Article, taken also with the above section we were discussing, was used in my argument (which has also been used by the Supreme Court in their written opinions of several cases). Should have made myself more clear about that, sorry and thank you for pointing that out.;)
Let me preface my comment by saying I don't like what the government is doing, nor do I like this treaty.
The argument is that because the U.S. agreed to seal the documents than that part of the treaty is in force. True, the U.S. did not have to agree and the request for help probably would have been withdrawn at that point. But because the government did agree, then the court had no choice but to enforce it (according to Article VI Section 2 of the Consititution).
Second, as I understand the law, the Constitution only comes into play here because this is a treaty (see above citation). If a citizen of the United States, who was directly affected (effected? My grammar stinks tonight) by this (it was his/her server, etc., then it is a whole different ball game. That person would have standing to file suit and have the right to demand why their property had been seized.
It sucks, I know and I don't like it, but according to my understanding, that is the way it is.
Nope.
What it means is this:
No state can invalidate the Constitution or Federal Treaties with laws in their borders.
For example, say State X wants to make it a law that if anyone calls a politican a potty-head, they would be arrested. This is in clear violation of the First Amendment and the law can not be applied because of that.
I think what you may be unclear of is the first part. That basically means that laws can be made to easily enforce the Constitution.
The argument is also made that when new issues come up that the founding fathers may have not thought of, new laws can be made to enforce that new issue. A good example of that is the whole abortion issue. While the SCOUTS have declared that a woman has the Constitutional right to choose, laws have been made to regulate that choice (for example, third trimester abortions, how abortions are performed, etc.). But this gets into the sticky situation of "strict" vs. "loose" consturctionalists, and that is a whole other (even longer) post.
I hope I didn't confuse you more!;)
Glad to see him gone, but what worries me is who are they going to get to replace him? I seriously doubt it is going to be someone better than him (and, at this point, I do belive Atila the Hun would be better).
However, if you get together with a lot of people and raise a stink, you get your way.
Case in point: look at the uproar surrounding Janet Jackson at the superbowl. Everyone got fined because some people got up off their over-reactive arses and wrote a couple of letters to the FCC. Now, I'm guessing a lot of Americans could have cared less and didn't even see "the flash." In fact, I read something like 100,000 people wrote (and that is a very small minority compared to the population of this country). Still, they got their way.....
I understand what you are saying, however, I do believe that we need to get rid of waste, corruption and "pork" before we start taxing our citizens for more money.
Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to this, as I live near the Atlanta area and around half of the last administration is up on corruption charges and the new one isn't much better. I'm sure they would just love another source of money to give to their corrupt friends in "business contracts.":-/
IMHO, I don't think Shatner (at least, in recent years) resents Star Trek. Heck, he has made a lot of $$$ because of it, and he only has a career because of it. He even got to direct (in that gawd-awful Star Trek V).
And if we are honest, Shatner is not an Oscar-award winning actor. In fact, he is a pretty bad actor (if you read his biography, the guy couldn't get a job after "Star Trek"--he wrote that he was being "type-cast," but the guy can't get through a scene without overplaying it to save his life).
As for Stewart, he is an actor far above Shatner. I don't think it was a money thing for him...I knew that around the time Trekkies was being shot he was doing some other project.
Wow! Do you live in an area with a few used CD stores? If there isn't much competition, then there ya go.;)
A few suggestions (if I may):
-try placing ads in free on-line publications such as Craig's List. Offer to swap your old CDs for specific titles.
-if you live in a college area, place an ad on a community board. You will not believe the amount of wonderful things (not just music) I found.
-check out those "Clearance" bins at your local music store. I have found some amazing music for $3-4 each (mostly International, Electronic, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe every country should adopt the U.S. people's views or way of governing, however, I do not like the fact that my government would promote differing views that go against the basic ideals that our country was founded. Hence, my "disgusting" comment in regards to a treaty that would force citizens of another country to house our soldiers.
*Scratches head* I hope that made some sense. :-)
Yes, the government did not have to agree and if they had not at the beginning, there would be no standing in the court to keep it confidential.
Furthermore, as long as the other parties involved say "we want this information kept confidential" and because the U.S. agreed to do this at the beginning, there really isn't anything our courts can do about it (again, because of this section of the treaty). UNLESS, it involves an United States citizen. Then it is a whole different ball game.
I agree with your assessment about the War on Drugs and Terror being used to chip away at our rights. I also am sickened by the fact that I am actually defending the government on this case because of my understanding of International Law and the U.S. system of law. I want to make it clear that I think what my government is doing is morally wrong, but perfectly legal. To me, that makes this one sad case.
P.S. Thanks for checking up on me on the grammar. ;)
If the government signs a treaty with France (as an example) that states that their citizens must house our soldiers it is perfectly legal. Disgusting, but totally legal.
What is interesting about this case is that if this would have happened here, it would be a total violation of several articles of the Constiution, but because it happened overseas, with no U.S. citizen involved (so far), well, the only thing that applies is the treaty.
Originally, yes you are exactly correct. However, after the Civil War, Article 14 was added to the Consitution which basically reads that the States can not make laws that messes with the Constiution. Section 1 of the article (in part) reads: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor denyu to any person within its jurisdiction the eqwual protection of laws."
This Article, taken also with the above section we were discussing, was used in my argument (which has also been used by the Supreme Court in their written opinions of several cases). Should have made myself more clear about that, sorry and thank you for pointing that out. ;)
The argument is that because the U.S. agreed to seal the documents than that part of the treaty is in force. True, the U.S. did not have to agree and the request for help probably would have been withdrawn at that point. But because the government did agree, then the court had no choice but to enforce it (according to Article VI Section 2 of the Consititution).
Second, as I understand the law, the Constitution only comes into play here because this is a treaty (see above citation). If a citizen of the United States, who was directly affected (effected? My grammar stinks tonight) by this (it was his/her server, etc., then it is a whole different ball game. That person would have standing to file suit and have the right to demand why their property had been seized.
It sucks, I know and I don't like it, but according to my understanding, that is the way it is.
Nope. What it means is this: No state can invalidate the Constitution or Federal Treaties with laws in their borders. For example, say State X wants to make it a law that if anyone calls a politican a potty-head, they would be arrested. This is in clear violation of the First Amendment and the law can not be applied because of that. I think what you may be unclear of is the first part. That basically means that laws can be made to easily enforce the Constitution. The argument is also made that when new issues come up that the founding fathers may have not thought of, new laws can be made to enforce that new issue. A good example of that is the whole abortion issue. While the SCOUTS have declared that a woman has the Constitutional right to choose, laws have been made to regulate that choice (for example, third trimester abortions, how abortions are performed, etc.). But this gets into the sticky situation of "strict" vs. "loose" consturctionalists, and that is a whole other (even longer) post. I hope I didn't confuse you more! ;)
I'm still wondering what his qualifications were in the first place.
But what qualifications did he have for this post? Also, he lost an election to a dead guy before Bush appointed him.
It appears that being a "religious right wackjob" is the only qualification needed for this administration. :-/
*shudder*
I voted for that Bush guy because we weren't safe, and less than two weeks later we are?
That was sarcasm. I swear.
Glad to see him gone, but what worries me is who are they going to get to replace him? I seriously doubt it is going to be someone better than him (and, at this point, I do belive Atila the Hun would be better).
However, if you get together with a lot of people and raise a stink, you get your way.
Case in point: look at the uproar surrounding Janet Jackson at the superbowl. Everyone got fined because some people got up off their over-reactive arses and wrote a couple of letters to the FCC. Now, I'm guessing a lot of Americans could have cared less and didn't even see "the flash." In fact, I read something like 100,000 people wrote (and that is a very small minority compared to the population of this country). Still, they got their way.....
Article 1, Section 8.3:
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
This tiny little section was used (and still is used) by the federal grovernment to get their grubby little paws into just above everything.
Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to this, as I live near the Atlanta area and around half of the last administration is up on corruption charges and the new one isn't much better. I'm sure they would just love another source of money to give to their corrupt friends in "business contracts." :-/
And if we are honest, Shatner is not an Oscar-award winning actor. In fact, he is a pretty bad actor (if you read his biography, the guy couldn't get a job after "Star Trek"--he wrote that he was being "type-cast," but the guy can't get through a scene without overplaying it to save his life).
As for Stewart, he is an actor far above Shatner. I don't think it was a money thing for him...I knew that around the time Trekkies was being shot he was doing some other project.
Just my 2 cents. ;)
Wow! Do you live in an area with a few used CD stores? If there isn't much competition, then there ya go. ;)
A few suggestions (if I may):
-try placing ads in free on-line publications such as Craig's List. Offer to swap your old CDs for specific titles.
-if you live in a college area, place an ad on a community board. You will not believe the amount of wonderful things (not just music) I found.
-check out those "Clearance" bins at your local music store. I have found some amazing music for $3-4 each (mostly International, Electronic, etc.)