Death Of A President (1 Viewer)

[Rich]

This is so obviously a discussion on the interpretation and corruption of statistics that it surpasses all logic.

Only your logic Jenny

 

[Bodisathva]

First off I don’t believe the courts have any thing to do with “making” law, they (higher courts) exist to review and interpret its constitutionality.

Technically, Federal Law only exists once precedence is established, not by the Amendment itself. That precedence, of cource, must be made in accordance with an interpretation of the Constitution. So a verdict must be handed down in accordance with the new Amendment before Federal Law is established through precedence.

Actually it was quite an amazing feat when you consider that it takes a super majority in congress and ratification by, I believe, 60 percent of the states.

brother, h'aint that the truth!

 

[Rich]

Actually it was quite an amazing feat when you consider that it takes a super majority in congress and ratification by, I believe, 60 percent of the states.

Not very amazing when you consider that Bush has had the right to hapeus corpus removed at a whim

 

[Bodisathva]

Not very amazing when you consider that Bush has had the right to hapeus corpus removed at a whim

habeas corpus - A writ (court order) that is usually used to bring a prisoner before the court to determine the legality of his imprisonment. Someone imprisoned in state court proceedings can file a petition in federal court for a "writ of habeas corpus," seeking to have the federal court review whether the state has violated his or her rights under the US Constitution.​

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Constitution protects "We the people". Non-citizens do not fall under the auspices of the Constitution. I believe you want to complain about the violations of the Geneva Convention...get it right man!

 

[Kraj]

...am I on someone's ignore list

No, I just started making my post before yours appeared. I felt it was different enough not to delete.

Technically, Federal Law only exists once precedence is established, not by the Amendment itself. That precedence, of cource, must be made in accordance with an interpretation of the Constitution. So a verdict must be handed down in accordance with the new Amendment before Federal Law is established through precedence.

I don't think this is true. Any law Congress passes is Federal law whether or not the judiciary reviews it. Further, the judiciary does not have the power to review an ammendment. Judicial review can only determine whether a law is constitutional or not; an ammendment is part of the Constitution so it is impossible to be unconstitutional.

 

[Rich]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Constitution protects "We the people".

Not according to this site
http://www.tidewaterfordemocracy.com/?q=node/view/144

 

[Bodisathva]

No, I just started making my post before yours appeared. I felt it was different enough not to delete.

whew!...had me worried

I don't think this is true. Any law Congress passes is Federal law whether or not the judiciary reviews it. Further, the judiciary does not have the power to review an ammendment. Judicial review can only determine whether a law is constitutional or not; an ammendment is part of the Constitution so it is impossible to be unconstitutional.

you misunderstood (or I'm not being succinct)...I was not implying that the judiciary has the ability to evaluate, enact, or overturn an amendment. (this is from the back of the gen-ed archives and I'd have to do some digging to be certain so if you can prove otherwise, please do) What I was trying to get at is that an amendment is not a law but that Federal Law is created by precedent or by a ruling of the Supreme Court as to their interpretation of the established framework. Perhaps if I'm feeling industriouso ), I'll dig further. As to the judiciary review:

Since the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review of congressional enactments, the Court's exercise of it is something of a usurpation. It is not known whether the framers of the Constitution opposed judicial review, but...[the Supreme Court's] legal power to review acts of Congress has not been seriously questioned since 1803

and while I'm on the subject, Rich:

...in 1867, Congress's distrust of southern courts led it to confer on federal courts the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners already tried or being tried in state courts...This writ gives state prisoners a second channel toward Supreme Court review in case their direct appeal from the highest state court fails. The writ of habeas corpus is discretionary.

a. last I checked, Guantanamo Bay was not a State, and b. it's discretionary anyway.

 

[Bodisathva]

upon further rumination, I remembered the remainder of the argument on Constitution vs. Federal Law. If you consider the Constitution to be a set of laws, there are far too many loopholes created by both the evolution of society and the basic number of permutations to human activity. Therefore, the Constitution must be considered a set of guidelines by which the judiciary creates precedents, based upon their interpretation of the Constitution, which then are considered Federal Law. In the instance of Abortion, there is no portion of the Constitution which implicitly states that a woman may or may not have an abortion, but the Roe vs. Wade decision established a precedent based upon other personal freedoms which are implicitly granted by the Constitution.

OK...I'm done bloviating

 

[Kraj]

You're kind of right and wrong at the same time. Both the Constitution and judicial pecedent are part of federal law (as are statutes, administrative rules, and executive orders). Judicial review interprets the Constitution because the Constitution can never cover absolutely every situation. So in a way it is used as a guide. But it is also the supreme law. Everything in it is 100% legally binding and no law can ever contradict it.

 

[Rich]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Constitution protects "We the people". Non-citizens do not fall under the auspices of the Constitution. I believe you want to complain about the violations of the Geneva Convention...get it right man!

I see, so the statement that America is the bastion of freedom, democracy and human rights is nothing more than a myth?

Isn't the banning of smoking in public etc. a violation of the civil liberties guaranteed by your constitution?

 

[jsanders]

I see, so the statement that America is the bastion of freedom, democracy and human rights is nothing more than a myth?

Isn't the banning of smoking in public etc. a violation of the civil liberties guaranteed by your constitution?

As to the first statement (which was written as a question to make you look smart) obviously learning is beyond your capacity.

For the second, that’s under debate right now, and as you might expect in tobacco growing states like Virginia we are behind the nation in enacting laws to promote abstinence in public.

 

[Bodisathva]

I see, so the statement that America is the bastion of freedom, democracy and human rights is nothing more than a myth?

Weren't you complaining before about the US trying to impose it's rules onto other parts of the globe? Make up your mind

Isn't the banning of smoking in public etc. a violation of the civil liberties guaranteed by your constitution?

Actually the quandary is not so much whether or not people have the right to smoke, but whether or not their right to smoke outweighs the ensuing infringement of innocent bystander's right to breathe fresh air and not second-hand smoke.

 

[Rich]

Weren't you complaining before about the US trying to impose it's rules onto other parts of the globe? .

Well of course, that's just one of the reasons of course

Actually the quandary is not so much whether or not people have the right to smoke, but whether or not their right to smoke outweighs the ensuing infringement of innocent bystander's right to breathe fresh air and not second-hand smoke

I see, so what about the rights of those who constantly end up dead at the point of a gun and where's the freedom and civil rights logic behind the latest proposal to ban certain cooking oils?

 

[Bodisathva]

I see, so what about the rights of those who constantly end up dead at the point of a gun

I'm not completely certain on this one, but I believe that if you end up dead you can only do it once...

where's the freedom and civil rights logic behind the latest proposal to ban certain cooking oils?

I don't know. I suppose a case could be made that the establishments in question are not completely forthcoming in the disclosure of what nasty, synthetic, crud they're trying to feed their customers. Personally, if you want to harden your arteries and commit slow suicide, be my guest. The government doesn't have the right to dictate that sort of thing, IMHO.

 

[Kraj]

I see, so what about the rights of those who constantly end up dead at the point of a gun

Quite simply, the Constitution does not guarantee the right to smoke so a law can change it relatively easily. The Constitution does gaurantee the right to own a gun, so no law can ever change that. The Constitution itself can be changed, but a lot more people have to agree for that to happen. Rather than a simple majority needed to pass a bill, two thirds of both the House and the Senate must pass an amendment and on top of that 38 states need to ratify it.

 

[msp]

I watched this last night, I quite enjoyed it all the events seemed reasonably believable. Especially the bit about going after a suspect without the proper evidence. I can imagine the pressure to catch someone who assassinated any President to be immense.

Whilst I think the film needed to name Bush as the president rather than a fictional character, I do understand why some people did not like it, I did find it a little unnerving, (and I am not a fan of Bush).