General discussion
-
CreatorTopic
-
February 14, 2008 at 4:08 pm #2221502
Senate violates Constitution…
Lockedby inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
I know, “Suprise, surprise”
Note, for those of you keeping score, that Obama and Clinton held true to their beliefs and ABSTAINED (way to take a stand!!!), while John McCain voted FOR it:
Subject: 68 Senators violated their oaths of office yesterday
Do you know the date of the first law ever passed by the United States’ Senate? It was May 5, 1789.
Do you know the subject of that law? It was the “Oath Act.” It’s purpose was to provide specific wording for the oath the Constitution requires Senators to swear upon taking office.
Strangely, the Constitution actually provides the specific wording of the oath the President is supposed to take, but it does not do so for Congress. Instead, the Constitution simply stipulates the following in Article VI, clause 3:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
The lack of specific wording meant that Congress had to create the wording. The oath they created as their first order of business, was very simple . . .
“I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”
Of course, later politicians have been increasingly fond of complexity, causing the oath to mutate into this . . .
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.”
The result remains the same. And please notice that members of Congress do not swear an oath to support or defend the nation, the country, or the government. They swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, specifically. This is very important . . .
The Founders viewed government as a servant of the people. They did not make the mistake that so many supposed “patriots” make, of thinking the government is the same thing as the nation, the country, or the people. Our country is made up of many institutions — families, churches, businesses, associations — of which the government is only one. All of these institutions taken together, and all the individuals within the country, independent of any institution, are what make up the country.
The government is meant to serve the nation, not BE the country.
In keeping with the ideas expressed in our Declaration of Independence, our government was instituted with highly limited powers. The instrument that imposed these limitations was the Constitution, and it is this document that members of Congress swear an oath to defend.
One of the consequences of Constitutional limits on government power is that bad people are often permitted to get away with doing bad things. The government is categorically denied many of the powers that might aid it in the apprehension of criminals. For example . . .
There are hundreds of murderers running lose in America, and thousands of murders committed each year, that the government might be able to stop. The Constitution specifically prohibits government from doing all that it could do to save lives by catching murderers.
Were the Founders crazy? Were they stupid? No, they were not. The Founders knew that any government that has all the power it might need to optimize its apprehension of murderers, would also have all the power it needed to become a mass murderer.
The Founders knew, even in their time, that governments were, historically, the greatest killers of all. The history of the last century has only added to the evidence. Tens of millions of people were murdered in the 20th Century by governments that had too much power. Our Constitution protects us from this; so far.
Think about that.
But now, because criminals murdered thousands of people on September 11, 2001, many are eager to abandon their Constitutional protections.
Have we become a nation of sniveling cowards? If not, please explain how it is that Congress has either bowed to or exploited this fear to become a gang of lawbreakers?
Yesterday, 68 Senators violated their oaths of office. They voted to pass S. 2248, a new law designed to replace the so-called “Protect America Act.” This bill violates the Bill of Rights . . .
* It permits the President to spy on Americans without a warrant.
* It grants retroactive immunity to tele-communications companies that collaborated with the Bush administration in previous warrantless spying, thereby creating an incentive for other companies to engage in similar crimes in the future (only Qwest Communications insisted on warrants).Will this new, un-constitutional power, prevent future terrorist attacks? Of course not, nothing can do that, just as there is no law or power that could completely stop murders by domestic criminals.
Does this new law create a tyranny? That would be an exaggeration. But what will happen when the next terrorist attack comes?
The sniveling cowards among us, and the lawbreakers in Congress, will then seek still more powers.
At one point will our children call this tyranny? Will there be any turning back?
Yesterday, 19 Democrats, 48 Republicans, and 1 independent voted to violate the Constitution and their oaths of office. Only 28 Democrats, 1 independent, and ZERO Republicans remained true to their oaths. The Republicans were universally bad.
But please notice that the law could not have passed without the vote of the Democrats!
Let this be clear — neither political party is going to protect our Constitution, unless WE compel them to do it.
All hope is NOT lost. S. 2248 cannot become law unless the House agrees to its provisions. Fortunately, the House version of this bill, while not perfect, is signficantly better. Our best hope, and we must take it, is to tell the House to stick by their version of the bill.
A list of how the Senate voted is pasted below my signature. Use the personal comments section of your message to Congress to thank your Senator if he or she voted against S. 2248, or to criticize your Senator if he or she voted for it. Ask your House member to reject the provisions of S. 2248.
How the Senate voted . . .
Sen. Daniel Akaka [D, HI] Nay
Sen. Lamar Alexander [R, TN] Aye
Sen. Wayne Allard [R, CO] Aye
Sen. John Barrasso [R, WY] Aye
Sen. Max Baucus [D, MT] Aye
Sen. B. Evan Bayh [D, IN] Aye
Sen. Robert Bennett [R, UT] Aye
Sen. Joseph Biden [D, DE] Nay
Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D, NM] Nay
Sen. Christopher Bond [R, MO] Aye
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA] Nay
Sen. Sherrod Brown [D, OH] Nay
Sen. Samuel Brownback [R, KS] Aye
Sen. Jim Bunning [R, KY] Aye
Sen. Richard Burr [R, NC] Aye
Sen. Robert Byrd [D, WV] Nay
Sen. Maria Cantwell [D, WA] Nay
Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D, MD] Nay
Sen. Thomas Carper [D, DE] Aye
Sen. Robert Casey [D, PA] Aye
Sen. C. Saxby Chambliss [R, GA] Aye
Sen. Hillary Clinton [D, NY] Abstain
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK] Aye
Sen. Thad Cochran [R, MS] Aye
Sen. Norm Coleman [R, MN] Aye
Sen. Susan Collins [R, ME] Aye
Sen. Kent Conrad [D, ND] Aye
Sen. Bob Corker [R, TN] Aye
Sen. John Cornyn [R, TX] Aye
Sen. Larry Craig [R, ID] Aye
Sen. Michael Crapo [R, ID] Aye
Sen. Jim DeMint [R, SC] Aye
Sen. Christopher Dodd [D, CT] Nay
Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R, NC] Aye
Sen. Pete Domenici [R, NM] Aye
Sen. Byron Dorgan [D, ND] Nay
Sen. Richard Durbin [D, IL] Nay
Sen. John Ensign [R, NV] Aye
Sen. Michael Enzi [R, WY] Aye
Sen. Russell Feingold [D, WI] Nay
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D, CA] Nay
Sen. Lindsey Graham [R, SC] Abstain
Sen. Charles Grassley [R, IA] Aye
Sen. Judd Gregg [R, NH] Aye
Sen. Charles Hagel [R, NE] Aye
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D, IA] Nay
Sen. Orrin Hatch [R, UT] Aye
Sen. Kay Hutchison [R, TX] Aye
Sen. James Inhofe [R, OK] Aye
Sen. Daniel Inouye [D, HI] Aye
Sen. John Isakson [R, GA] Aye
Sen. Tim Johnson [D, SD] Aye
Sen. Edward Kennedy [D, MA] Nay
Sen. John Kerry [D, MA] Nay
Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D, MN] Nay
Sen. Herbert Kohl [D, WI] Aye
Sen. Jon Kyl [R, AZ] Aye
Sen. Mary Landrieu [D, LA] Aye
Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D, NJ] Nay
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT] Nay
Sen. Carl Levin [D, MI] Nay
Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I, CT] Aye
Sen. Blanche Lincoln [D, AR] Aye
Sen. Richard Lugar [R, IN] Aye
Sen. Mel Martinez [R, FL] Aye
Sen. John McCain [R, AZ] Aye
Sen. Claire McCaskill [D, MO] Aye
Sen. Mitch McConnell [R, KY] Aye
Sen. Robert Menendez [D, NJ] Nay
Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D, MD] Aye
Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R, AK] Aye
Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA] Nay
Sen. Ben Nelson [D, NE] Aye
Sen. Bill Nelson [D, FL] Aye
Sen. Barack Obama [D, IL] Abstain
Sen. Mark Pryor [D, AR] Aye
Sen. John Reed [D, RI] Nay
Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] Nay
Sen. Pat Roberts [R, KS] Aye
Sen. John Rockefeller [D, WV] Aye
Sen. Ken Salazar [D, CO] Aye
Sen. Bernard Sanders [I, VT] Nay
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] Nay
Sen. Jefferson Sessions [R, AL] Aye
Sen. Richard Shelby [R, AL] Aye
Sen. Gordon Smith [R, OR] Aye
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME] Aye
Sen. Arlen Specter [R, PA] Aye
Sen. Debbie Ann Stabenow [D, MI] Nay
Sen. Ted Stevens [R, AK] Aye
Sen. John Sununu [R, NH] Aye
Sen. Jon Tester [D, MT] Nay
Sen. John Thune [R, SD] Aye
Sen. David Vitter [R, LA] Aye
Sen. George Voinovich [R, OH] Aye
Sen. John Warner [R, VA] Aye
Sen. Jim Webb [D, VA] Aye
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI] Aye
Rep. Roger Wicker [R, MS-1] Aye
Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR] NayTopic is locked -
CreatorTopic
All Comments
-
AuthorReplies
-
-
February 14, 2008 at 4:10 pm #2664449
This and other interesting reading at:
by inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Senate violates Constitution…
I encourage everyone to check it out.
-
February 14, 2008 at 4:50 pm #2664435
Yes, I have been there several times
by the scummy one · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to This and other interesting reading at:
and it is a good ‘must visit’ site, I agree
-
February 14, 2008 at 7:04 pm #2664406
so tell me inklin, I really would like to know
by danlm · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to This and other interesting reading at:
1). Why should a warrent be issued if both party’s of the conversation reside out of the United States, but because of routing cross our broder. Screw them. And if you agree, thats crap. Then how would or should it be determined, documented to insure auditing by outside sources, and should there be a waiting period at all.
You ever heard of guilt by association? Especially with regard to known goverments or terrorists that have claimed the ultimate goal of destroying this nation. So, if I’m talking to afganistan where multi national inteligence agencies say there are mutiple terrorist groups located. Why, damn. Wouldn’t you consider that a bloody good sign that I should be monitored? Because of never knowing when or how far a plan might be? Wouldn’t you want that monitoring to start immediatly?
Care to show me in all your links specifiatly word for word, with no doubt of the meaning. If a warrent should be needed when both parties are of the conversation our outside the boundries of this nation, but because of routing cross this border? Care to give me your thoughts on this?
Do I like this bill, no. Because it is too bloody gray. But definatly not for the same reasons you do. Mutiple reasons.
1). Has to be passed by 2 parts of the legslation. Ie: Senate and then the house. Check and then ballance. As provided by the constitution.
2). Has to be signed by the president. Wither you like it or not, again. Check and balance. As provided by the constitution.
3). If it is against the constitution, and not by your understanding. But by people that study it every day. Ie: The judicial. Then it will be ruled unlawfull, as other laws passed have been. Again, check and balances. Again, as defined by the constitution.So, all three branch’s are involved in this law. Before its passed, to get it passed, and to review the law to determine if it is unconstitutional. Checks and balances.
The constitution is not broken unless any or all of those checks and balances are not adhered to. Your arument holds NO WATER.
Dan
-
February 14, 2008 at 7:43 pm #2664392
Don’t rain on a good rant
by jdclyde · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to so tell me inklin, I really would like to know
It is more dramatic to say they have trampled the constitution.
If you are talking to known terrorists, you get no sympathy from me if your conversation is listened to.
What part of the Constitution covers telcos again?
-
February 14, 2008 at 7:58 pm #2664389
What do the telcos & ISPs have to hide?
by absolutely · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Don’t rain on a good rant
If they’re behaving legitimately, why do they need a pardon?
-
February 14, 2008 at 8:42 pm #2664380
That depends on which court were to hear the case
by jdclyde · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to What do the telcos & ISPs have to hide?
Some follow the laws, some make up their own as they go along. We all should fear the later court.
-
February 14, 2008 at 9:18 pm #2664367
Back up.
by absolutely · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to That depends on which court were to hear the case
Why should such a crappy law as this get to any court in the first place?
-
February 15, 2008 at 6:26 am #2664889
That is easy
by jdclyde · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Back up.
Because stupid, lazy people don’t pay attention to what our “lawmakers” do, so we continue to elect and re-elect the same types of crooks, decade after decade.
There are some that will try to claim the letter behind the name is what makes the difference between a good person and a bad person. I pity the fools…..
The problem is that we already have to many laws and they need to stop thinking they are doing their jobs by continually adding more! Go through the books and fix/remove the old ones and leave us the F alone.
-
February 15, 2008 at 8:13 am #2664808
So, it looks like you don’t really want to defend or assert any “merits” ..
by absolutely · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Back up.
of this particular law. Correct?
[i]The problem is that we already have to many laws and they need to stop thinking they are doing their jobs by continually adding more! Go through the books and fix/remove the old ones and leave us the F alone.[/i]
It really looks like you’re just annoyed at part of Inkling’s argument, but have no particular enthusiasm for a new statute that specifically exempts ISP’s and telco’s from prosecution, even if they’ve participated in wiretaps they knew at the time to be illegal.
[i]Because stupid, lazy people don’t pay attention to what our “lawmakers” do, so we continue to elect and re-elect the same types of crooks, decade after decade.
There are some that will try to claim the letter behind the name is what makes the difference between a good person and a bad person. I pity the fools…..[/i]
So do I.
-
February 15, 2008 at 9:29 am #2664749
The merits of illegal and unconstitutional
by jdclyde · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Back up.
We have two things going on here.
First is if the telcos did or didn’t do anything illegal. As this bill removes the ability to prosecute, it won’t go to court, so we will probably never know what they did and the legal grounds that they stood on.
Second is the emotional, irrational, and Sinsationalist rant on how it is illegal and unconstitutional to grant immunity, claiming that it is making the actions legal after the fact, which is not what immunity does.
So, we can go on about something we will never know about if you wish. The rest of the rant just takes away any merit.
-
February 15, 2008 at 9:46 am #2664740
I’m going to try one last time.
by inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Back up.
The telcos are not being granted immunity by the Judicial Branch, as it is able to do.
The telcos are not being pardoned by the Executive Branch, as it is able to do.
The Legislative Branch is passing an ex post facto law, which is both unconstitutional and illegal.
The only misunderstanding here is your part.
-
February 15, 2008 at 12:48 pm #2664658
Then what [i]does[/i] this immunity law do?
by absolutely · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Back up.
jdclyde: [i]Second is the emotional, irrational, and sensationalist rant on how it is illegal and un-Constitutional to grant immunity, claiming that it is [b]making the actions legal after the fact, which is not what immunity does[/b].[/i]
Please describe, in your own words, what you think “immunity” as used in the present context, does do.
-
February 16, 2008 at 4:31 pm #2556541
What does immunity do?
by jdclyde · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Back up.
It doesn’t change legal vs illegal.
Immunity just means that person or group of persons will not be charged with the alleged illegal activity.
Based on all of the court cases to this point, it seems less and less likely that there will be anyone convicted of a crime over the wiretapping of people talking to terrorists.
This is far from “innocent Americans getting spied on”. I am still waiting for the first case brought to court of someone that has “received damages” from the activity.
-
February 16, 2008 at 6:33 pm #2556520
Which branch of government can [u]legally[/u] grant pardons?
by absolutely · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Back up.
Given, as you’ve already said, that what [u]was[/u] illegal last year isn’t in question, what does the Legislative Branch have to say about who is prosecuted under the laws that existed last year, for actions that occurred last year?
-
February 16, 2008 at 8:25 pm #2556500
-
February 17, 2008 at 3:21 am #2558122
Like I said: “Back up.”
by absolutely · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Back up.
Either “pardon” is not the right word, or they [u]are guilty[/u], possibly both. What GWB tried to arrange for them is retroactive exemption from the rule of law.
-
February 18, 2008 at 10:34 am #2557664
retroactive exemption
by jdclyde · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Back up.
isn’t that exactly what immunity is and always has been?
They give in a certain case and agreement that they will not charge or prosecute the offender.
It is NOT changing the law or making something legal, it is just making the choice not to enforce the laws.
Much like ALL politicians have been doing with the border for the last century? CHOOSING not to enforce existing laws. Doesn’t change the law.
-
March 17, 2008 at 6:31 pm #2548705
If they’re behaving legitimately, why do they need a pardon?
by char-sebastian · about 16 years ago
In reply to What do the telcos & ISPs have to hide?
1) It is not the Telecoms/ISPs that need a pardon. The Telecoms/ISPs want IMMUNITY from proscution by subscriber/members suing them because the telecoms/ISPs handed over millions of session records without court order/supbeanas or a warrant. Just so the government can go trolling through looking for something that might be there.
The government already has FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) courts to authorize warrants and allows law enforcement to install a tap for up to 72 hours before obtaining a warrant.
-
February 15, 2008 at 5:26 am #2664269
Specifically, Article One, Section Nine:
by inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Don’t rain on a good rant
[i]No…ex post facto Law shall be passed.[/i]
What they did was illegal. It is unconstitutional to retroactively pass a law that makes it legal.
I have to disagree with the “dramatic” statement. However much I would [b]like[/b] for news of the Senate trampling the Constitution to be extraordinary; it is not.
-
February 15, 2008 at 5:51 am #2664907
Ex post facto…
by rfink · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Specifically, Article One, Section Nine:
Ex post facto is turning something that was legal into something illegal after the fact. The president is doing the opposite here, turning something illegal into something legal. He’s always had that power, it’s called a pardon.
-
February 15, 2008 at 6:01 am #2664900
It works both ways.
by inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Ex post facto…
An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.
It’s called amnesty and it is unconstitutional, any way you slice it.
-
February 15, 2008 at 8:34 am #2664787
A presidental
by dumphrey · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It works both ways.
pardon can exhonorate a single individual from the burdon of prosecution, but it does not change the leagal state of the inital case. Jr. can pardon a murderer, but that does not make murder leagl, it just excuses Big Mad Drongo from the hemp fandango.
I think what you are talking about Inkling, is the law that now allows the unrestricted surveilence of American citizens, and as such retoactivly absolving telcos of all guilt. -
February 15, 2008 at 9:02 am #2664776
Yes, that’s what I was saying in general.
by inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It works both ways.
In this particular post I was simply addressing the incorrect assertion that ex post facto [b]only[/b] meant that you make something previously legal, illegal.
-
February 15, 2008 at 9:18 am #2664755
Pardon is an Executive privilege, not a Legislative one.
by absolutely · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Ex post facto…
Pardon works on a case-by-case basis. Statute applies, or does not apply, to everybody. Removing the burden of accountability from ISPs & telcos removes the equal protection of law from their customers.
-
February 15, 2008 at 6:31 am #2664886
Overly dramatic and misrepresentation
by jdclyde · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Specifically, Article One, Section Nine:
[b]Immunity from prosecution is NOT making an action legal[/b], it just means you are choosing to not punish someone for doing whatever illegal activity they might have been doing.
Neither illegal, nor unconstitutional and done all the time.
If you stop being so emotional about this and think about it, you would already know that.
-
February 15, 2008 at 8:16 am #2664805
I’m not talking about deals made by U.S. Attorneys, etc.
by inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Overly dramatic and misrepresentation
Congress is attempting to pass a law that is in violation of the Constitution.
That makes it unconstitutional.
That isn’t emotion or dramatization. That is simple logic.
-
February 15, 2008 at 8:19 am #2664802
A pardon is offered by the Executive
by absolutely · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Overly dramatic and misrepresentation
A statute is the work of the Legislative Branch, therefore this does constitute an [i]ex post facto [b]law[/b][/i]. While their results to the defendants would be the same, retroactive immunity statutes granted by the Legislature pardons granted by the President and are not the same. The former unarguably undermines the Constitution; the latter, arguably, does not.
The distinction between retroactive illegality and retroactive legality is by the way not supported by a literal reading of the Constitution, and legalizing a previously criminal action extends protection to one group [b]at the expense of another[/b]. There is no valid reasoning for such.
-
February 15, 2008 at 8:54 am #2664781
A 101 question
by onbliss · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to A pardon is offered by the Executive
…for my benefit. For a moment let us digress from the original raised issue.
Say, a person is charged for violating Law A. Few weeks pass by when the case is still pending before the Court. During that time Law B is passed by virtue of which the earlier action (violation of Law A) becomes no longer unlawful {essentially negates Law A}.
And now the case opens in the Court, my assumption is that the case is bound by Law A as the violation occurred when Law A was still active. Hence the person if proven guilty will be punished.
Am I correct in my assumption?
-
February 19, 2008 at 8:36 am #2558276
re: A 101 question
by tonythetiger · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to A pardon is offered by the Executive
[i]Am I correct in my assumption?[/i]
I would say yes, because technically you are not punished for the act itself, but for violating the law.
An example would be speeding 55 in a marked 45 zone but between the date of the ticket and the court date, they raised the speed limit to 55 on that stretch of road. You were still speeding at the time of the offense, and even if a law is eliminated, they wouldn’t go and let all the people who violated that law off the hook. Think of all the people they’d have to hunt down to reimburse their speeding fine 🙂
Now if the [b]original[/b] law were found unconstitutional, then I would think that the previous violators WOULD have to be released/reimbursed, since that ruling essentially says the law shouldn’t have been enacted in the first place.
-
February 19, 2008 at 1:07 pm #2559418
Tony: Thanks {n/t}
by onbliss · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to A pardon is offered by the Executive
.
-
February 15, 2008 at 2:53 pm #2664590
No…ex post facto Law shall be passed. NO LAW WAS PASSED
by danlm · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Specifically, Article One, Section Nine:
Dan
-
February 15, 2008 at 7:35 pm #2556778
It’s pretty simple, Dan. READ MY POST TITLE.
by inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to No…ex post facto Law shall be passed. NO LAW WAS PASSED
SENATE Violates Constitution.
They ([b]THE SENATE[/b])did, in fact, vote to pass this law. Does that mean it’s official? Nope.
Did my post say that the House of Representatives violated the Constitution?
Did my post say that the President violated the Constitution by not vetoing this law?
Try again.
-
February 15, 2008 at 8:52 pm #2556763
and im saying the senate did not violate the constituion
by danlm · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It’s pretty simple, Dan. READ MY POST TITLE.
They have the right to propose any law they want. Anything. They can say that white males of 48 years of age can not look white females in the eye. That is a clear violation of civil rights. But, just because they voted on it in the senate, just because it passed. No laws were broken. none. not a thang.
Thats all I’m saying, I quite obviously went further. But point being, no constituional laws were broken by them voting for a law they want in the wording they stated.
Lets take this further. Has there been any laws that have passeed every test except one? Judical review? And then the law was overturned? Yes.
Example:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blctdecisions.htm
[i]WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court today threw out a law that let rape victims sue their attackers in federal court, saying Congress wrongly trampled on an area of state authority.[/i]
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi%2Dbin/getcase.pl%3Fcourt=US%26amp%3Bnavby=case%26amp%3Bvol=000%26amp%3Binvol=99%2D5
[i]
Petitioner Brzonkala filed suit, alleging, inter alia, that she was raped by respondents while the three were students at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and that this attack violated 42 U. S. C. ?13981, which provides a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence. Respondents moved to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a claim and that ?13981’s civil remedy is unconstitutional. Petitioner United States intervened to defend the section’s constitutionality. In dismissing the complaint, the District Court held that it stated a claim against respondents, but that Congress lacked authority to enact ?13981 under either ?8 of the Commerce Clause or ?5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which Congress had explicitly identified as the sources of federal authority for ?13981. The en banc Fourth Circuit affirmed. [/i]Point being. A law was passed that was ruled unconstitional. It was delt with. No reprocusions to the people that voted for it. Did the senators/congress individuals by passing that law violate the constituion. No they did not. The law was ruled unconstitional, and that was the end of it. No more, no less.
Dan
-
February 15, 2008 at 9:48 pm #2556752
You are arguing semantics.
by inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It’s pretty simple, Dan. READ MY POST TITLE.
Those Senators took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution.
Now, they are voting in favor of a law that is unconstitutional.
They have broken their oath. They have failed their constituents. They have proven themselves unwilling to perform the job as required.
Whatever your feelings on the illegal (and make no mistake, it was illegal) wiretapping, how can you not take umbrage with United States Senators voting to pass a law that is in direct violation of the Constitution?
Similar performance in the real world would be met with termination of employment.
-
February 15, 2008 at 10:18 pm #2556745
OK, Dan, this can be rejected by Congress, or overturned by SCOTUS
by absolutely · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It’s pretty simple, Dan. READ MY POST TITLE.
… if passed. The substantial difference here with the rulings you cited is that those stated that the defendants could not be prosecuted [i]under the particular statutes[/i] in question in those isolated cases. They did not remove all recourse to all victims of an entire class of crime. To merely vote “Yea” on such a historical revisionist statute is to attack the Constitution, which they have each taken an Oath or Affirmation to support.
I really don’t understand why you’re giving Inky such a hard time. At best, this bill is a terrible use of Senate’s time, at our expense [*]. Why don’t you talk about the merits of the bill instead of the merits of Inkling’s argument that it’s stupid? I think you’d have a very hard time supporting any claim to the contrary of [*].
-
February 16, 2008 at 7:40 am #2556636
because abso, his point is that the senate violated the constitution
by danlm · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It’s pretty simple, Dan. READ MY POST TITLE.
Thats his topic. I’m specific, on topic in my response.
As far as arguing the law itself. After my reading up on both his position about the defacto and presidential pardons. I think he is right about the law, it would be ruled unconditional because of that. I looked up the definition.
My problem with the law. There is no distinction between a party in the US calling a party outside the US and two parties outside the US who’s conversation cross over our air space due to routing.
The US constitution is not here to protect foreign nationals, if their conversation cross’s the air space of the US. Why should we get a warrant?
Dan
-
February 16, 2008 at 9:32 am #2556620
Close enough, Dan.
by absolutely · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It’s pretty simple, Dan. READ MY POST TITLE.
[i]Thats his topic. I’m specific, on topic in my response.
As far as arguing the law itself. After my reading up on both his position about the defacto and presidential pardons. I think he is right about the law, it would be ruled unconditional because of that. I looked up the definition.[/i]
He’s “right about the” … what? You said “law,” but it is not, never was, and now that Congress has let it expire, hopefully never will be a “law.” It was only ever a bill, but if it was a law as you just called it, it would have been un-Constitutional, and Inkling would have been exactly right. As it is, you have been a total nuisance, picking all the wrong nits, and I have no idea what your problem is, but I’m sick of it.
[i]My problem with the law. There is no distinction between a party in the US calling a party outside the US and two parties outside the US who’s conversation cross over our air space due to routing.
The US constitution is not here to protect foreign nationals, if their conversation cross’s the air space of the US. Why should we get a warrant?[/i]
My problem with you is you talk like nobody else’s problem with the same sh*tty law is valid, merely because it differs from yours. Didja ever think there might be several good reasons to say “it sucks”?
-
February 16, 2008 at 2:16 pm #2556585
re: Close enough, Dan.
by danlm · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It’s pretty simple, Dan. READ MY POST TITLE.
got me.
roflmao, your right. I deserve that.
ok, lets try it this way. If it would become a law, it would be ruled unconstitutional. I so deserved that.
Would you extend the existing law then Abso?
Dan
-
February 16, 2008 at 3:35 pm #2556563
Dan: “extend the existing law” ?
by absolutely · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It’s pretty simple, Dan. READ MY POST TITLE.
Sorry, which existing law? I would be tempted to be difficult just to bug you, except that I really don’t know what you’re asking now. TIA.
-
February 15, 2008 at 8:15 pm #2556771
In fact, Dan, if you read the post…
by inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to No…ex post facto Law shall be passed. NO LAW WAS PASSED
it clearly states:
[i]All hope is NOT lost. S. 2248 cannot become law unless the House agrees to its provisions.[/i]
-
February 14, 2008 at 7:56 pm #2664390
The pardon being proposed is not for _legitimate_ investigations
by absolutely · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to so tell me inklin, I really would like to know
[i]You ever heard of guilt by association? Especially with regard to known goverments or terrorists that have claimed the ultimate goal of destroying this nation. So, if I’m talking to afganistan where multi national inteligence agencies say there are mutiple terrorist groups located. Why, damn. Wouldn’t you consider that a bloody good sign that I should be monitored?[/i]
The bill in question does not deal with cases of “a bloody good sign that you should be monitored,” it pardons ISPs & telcos for cooperating with wiretap requests without a warrant, without FISA approval, and [u]without good-faith belief of any [b]reasonable suspicion[/b][/u] of the party or parties being monitored. There is no need for new legislation to make surveillance of [u]legitimate suspects[/u] legal; that has been possible all along.
-
February 15, 2008 at 3:46 am #2664302
Presidental pardon them
by danlm · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to The pardon being proposed is not for _legitimate_ investigations
What the hell, there were more serious crimes then performing a duty requested by your federal goverment pardoned by presidents.
lol, just the uproar over a presidental pardon to the telcos for this specific topic would be fun to watch.
Dan
-
February 15, 2008 at 5:29 am #2664266
So tell me, Dan
by inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Presidental pardon them
exactly which parts of the Constitution are meaningful and which are not?
Is it whichever parts the current Congress and President decide? That is exactly the argument you are making.
-
February 15, 2008 at 1:22 pm #2664636
What do you mean?
by tonythetiger · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to So tell me, Dan
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, [b]and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.[/b]
Most states have given similar powers to their governors over those who commit offenses against the state.
-
February 15, 2008 at 7:38 pm #2556777
Tony, this isn’t about the Judicial Branch of the Executive Branch
by inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to What do you mean?
as our friends here have tried to make it.
The Legislative Branch may not, per Article One, Section Nine of the Constitution of the United States, pass an ex post facto law.
That is exactly what the Senate voted to do.
That is unconstitutional.
-
February 19, 2008 at 6:21 am #2558346
Ex post facto
by tonythetiger · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to What do you mean?
means that they criminalize conduct that was not illegal at the time that conduct occurred.
I don’t see that here.
-
February 20, 2008 at 12:04 pm #2558830
Definition of ex post facto:
by inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to What do you mean?
An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.
It can mean making something that was previously done legally, illegal as a means to prosecute someone. It can also mean making something that was previously done illegally, legal as a means to exonerate someone.
-
February 22, 2008 at 9:05 am #2657016
I don’t think that’s possible.
by tonythetiger · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to What do you mean?
[i]It can also mean making something that was previously done illegally, legal as a means to exonerate someone.[/i]
The only way it could exonerate someone is if the original law was unconstitutional. People who were already found civilly or criminally liable would stay that way. A law exonerating these people would violate separation of powers, not ex post facto.
-
February 15, 2008 at 1:56 pm #2664616
excuse me, but ITS NOT A LAW
by danlm · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to So tell me, Dan
What part of the constitution don’t you understand here.
You have to have all three branch’s pass it.
thats not been done.
Want to get your panties in an uproar, then wait till at least the house pass’s it.
And then, when or IF the supreme court says its illegal and it still stays a law.
Then you have an argument, otherwise you have NOTHING TO STAND ON HERE. NOTHING.
Edited to add: Remember Nixon, that was a pardon. If anything brought to the forground the right of presidents to grant pardons, that did. And it still stands. I would say, yes… The president constitutionally has the right to grant pardons.
I’m sorry Inklin, your wrong here. Your getting up tight over something that wont pass. The house wont do it, at least not in this form. And the senate did nothing but PROPOSE a law. Just because they propose it, pass it in the senate. Doesn’t make it so.
Dan
-
February 15, 2008 at 7:41 pm #2556776
They (the Senate) voted to pass it into law.
by inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to excuse me, but ITS NOT A LAW
In violation of the Constitution.
If something is in violation of the Constitution, it is [b]UN[/b]Constitutional.
If you don’t have a problem with this you are, in effect, saying the Constitution is meaningless.
-
February 15, 2008 at 9:05 pm #2556757
Until rulled unconstitional by the supreme court
by danlm · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to excuse me, but ITS NOT A LAW
Your just stating an oppinion. And please read my previous post where I provide links to overturned laws that were ruled unconstitional.
Dan
-
February 15, 2008 at 9:11 pm #2556756
fine, don’t pass the law. Chuckle, and let the president issue pardons
by danlm · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to excuse me, but ITS NOT A LAW
;o)
Case closed, no further arguments. Congress cant do squat except bitch and moan. And thats basicatly all they do anyway, so what else is new.
Dan
-
February 15, 2008 at 10:09 pm #2556748
It’s called simple logic.
by inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to excuse me, but ITS NOT A LAW
It doesn’t take a Supreme Court ruling to realize that something is contrary to the written law.
You are arguing that 2 + 2 = 7,864.
It’s just not that complicated.
Let’s try an analogy:
Let’s say an officer orders his Marines to shoot unarmed civilians.
These Marines, as is their duty, refuse the unlawful order.
The officer is brought up on charges under the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice).
Using your logic, this officer would argue at his court martial that because the order was not carried out, it wasn’t technically “unlawful”.
Guess what? He would lose.
Also:
[i]Want to get your panties in an uproar, then wait till at least the house pass’s it.[/i]
Another analogy:
A man stops my wife and I on the street. Holds out a knife and demands our money or he will cut our throats.
Using your logic, instead of unholstering my concealed firearm and defending myself, I should simply let him rob us and possibly harm us before I take action.
Your logic is flawed, Dan.
-
February 16, 2008 at 2:20 pm #2556583
lets try a smiple anaolgy
by danlm · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to excuse me, but ITS NOT A LAW
I write a propsed law. Shoot all code pink members on site. The law is voted on by the senate, it pass’s. It is not passed by the house. Damn liberals, we should shoot all of them to.
Inklin, the constitution was not bypassed. Its NOT UNCONDITIONAL UNTIL RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
It’s as simple as that. And if nobody challenges it in court, then it never is unconstitional.
Dan
-
February 16, 2008 at 3:39 pm #2556561
Aside from the spleling, your smiple anaolgy is very funny.
by absolutely · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to excuse me, but ITS NOT A LAW
You say, if never challenged in court and [u]found so by the Supreme Court[/u], any given law is not un-Constitutional. That is just being a nuisance. You can look at the text, look up the prohibition of retroactive laws, do a little thinking, notice that victims of illegal wiretapping were scheduled to have their legal protection retroactively taken away, and say, in all honesty, that [u]is[/u] un-Constitutional, not “maybe it will be and maybe it won’t.” I’m glad you were roflyao about being called a nuisance earlier; that really helps me be patient with you now.
:p
[edit: took out redundant text]
-
February 18, 2008 at 10:28 am #2557667
abso, like it or not
by danlm · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to excuse me, but ITS NOT A LAW
Thats how I feel about what the senate did. Nobody has put forward anything that remotely makes me think otherwise.
As far as me giving inklin a hard time, I’m not. I’m just stating my position. Nothing more, nothing less.
I’m sorry your losing patience with me, but oh well. It’s definatly not the first time you have, and I am sure it won’t be the last time.
I didn’t think the law would pass in it’s present form, so I wasn’t worried about it one way or another. Thats why you see no arguing the law itself. The specifics of it will change. When it’s passed, then I’ll give you my oppinion. Why discuss something that didn’t have a snow balls chance in hell of passing?
Dan
-
February 19, 2008 at 7:43 am #2558316
re: You have to have all three branch’s pass it.
by tonythetiger · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to excuse me, but ITS NOT A LAW
No you don’t. You don’t always even need two! (Congress passes, President vetoes, Congress overrides the veto). The courts can only rule on something [b]after[/b] it’s been passed into law, and has been challenged subsequent to that passage.
-
February 19, 2008 at 5:13 pm #2559277
Toney, I realized my incorrect post after the fact
by danlm · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to excuse me, but ITS NOT A LAW
But, I’ve been busy and just haven’t made it back to correct. Thank you.
Dan
-
February 15, 2008 at 2:45 pm #2664594
Inklin, I am not picking and chosing. You are
by danlm · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to So tell me, Dan
ITs not a law
The president CAN grant pardons.
What part do you wish to pick and choose from.
Dan
-
February 15, 2008 at 10:20 pm #2556744
What happens to a bill if it’s passed, Dan?
by absolutely · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Inklin, I am not picking and chosing. You are
What is the intended outcome of any bill passed by either house? Your complaints to Inkling are disingenuous.
-
February 16, 2008 at 2:22 pm #2556582
If its passed by both house and senate
by danlm · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Inklin, I am not picking and chosing. You are
The president signs it, you know he will. It becomes a law. Just like the civil right laws passed that were later overturned. Until it is challenged and ruled unconstitutional, it is law.
Dan
-
February 15, 2008 at 8:29 am #2664793
So if I am following you
by dumphrey · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to The pardon being proposed is not for _legitimate_ investigations
this is just the Next Step in the RIAA’s attempts at World Domination? (jk)
But, with this kind of power, the telcos could, and will, give up any information at all about any vaguely illeagal activity at if for no other reason then it gets them out of the middle.Also, the fact that telco’s are being offered a pardon, means that wrong doing and illegal activity on their part has been acknowledged, and overlooked. Making them immune from prosecution in the violations of American contitutional rights, for providing the same level of service they provide to the Chinese government; packet tracking, activity logging, data mining, and fried green tomatoes (okay, I added that last one).
-
February 15, 2008 at 9:09 am #2664765
They are already protected in all cases of [i]lawful[/i] wiretap orders.
by absolutely · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to So if I am following you
[i]But, with this kind of power, the telcos could, and will, give up any information at all about any vaguely illegal activity at if for no other reason then it gets them out of the middle.[/i]
First, it’s not even investigation of “vaguely illegal activity” that concerns me, it’s completely illegal surveillance without a semblance of reasonable suspicion. Quakers, for example, are not plausible threats to national security.
Second, telcos already have a great deal of [b]power[/b] as pushers of extraordinary quantities of bits. I’m not concerned about an increase in their power, but int the removal of all accountability for their previous abuse of the power they have had, and will continue to have.
[i]Also, the fact that telco’s are being offered a pardon, means that wrong doing and illegal activity on their part has been acknowledged, and overlooked.[/i]
A pardon can be legitimate. I wish I had not used that word. The problem is not a “pardon,” which only the Executive can grant, but an [i]ex post facto law[/i] which directly violates the Constitution and grants retroactive blanket amnesty for an entire class of crime, in one specific industry. It violates equal protection by retroactively revoking recourse for all victims of that class of crime.
[i]Making them immune from prosecution in the violations of American Constitutional rights…[/i]
That would indeed be the effect. A “pardon” would never be necessary if prosecution is made impossible, and nobody could ever be held accountable for arbitrary abuse of surveillance powers that do have legitimate uses. Personal grudges just aren’t one of those legitimate uses.
-
February 15, 2008 at 12:02 pm #2664689
We appear to be on the same page
by dumphrey · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to They are already protected in all cases of [i]lawful[/i] wiretap orders.
but as usual, you phrase it all so much clearer.
-
February 15, 2008 at 2:48 pm #2664592
dumphrey, my only point is that its not a law
by danlm · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to So if I am following you
As far as the telecoms, what ever shakes out will. I think they should be granted immunity. But will it happen, who knows. But, what ever happens will be done by the books. And if there are questions about how it is done. Then that’s the job of the supreme courts. Nothing unconstitutional is occurring here.
Dan
-
February 18, 2008 at 12:13 pm #2557611
Well I agree they should be protected
by dumphrey · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to dumphrey, my only point is that its not a law
from prosecution for helping the Government with investigations, what I do not want to see is a situation where no one is liable for a violation of a citizens rights. As it stands, retoactively de-criminalizing an act by passing a current law is not the means to be used. It is a way for the Government to avoid liability for forcing telcos to comply. Its pre-SHTF spin. Lets be honest, how far and how long can a telco really disagree with the FBI, CIA, NSA, CBS, NBC, ETC? IRS audits, random outages, taxes…. the lsit goes on.
The problem with the current law as it stands, besides the borderline legality of it all, is that it creates another situation like the current HMO’s. even if you get shafted beyond all belief, even if you have been done so wrong even a idot is ahking their head, there is no legal recourse to recoupe damages, clear the situation, or right the law, BECAUSE the party’s responsible are immune to prosecution.
Also, you are assumeing that the checks and balance system is working as it should. The DUTY of any citizen is to question the integrity of their government, not blindly assume integrity on its part.
A large aprt of this is we have a President that knowingly LIEd to the American public about WOMD in Iraq, then justified it with the old “he needed a good killin, cus he was such an A-hole” excuse.. Many people feel let down and betrayed by our government. you have to understand that if trust in our governing body is at a low ebb, its because there are reasons.
As for it not being a law… legislation is law, law is legislation. Once a piece of legislation has been passed and is “on the books” it carries the weight of law. And as for the argument that “it is still pending a vote…” does that make any difference? The fact that this law came befor our congress is in and of itself indicative of the problem. Every country in the world does, and has always spied on its own citizens. The problem is now it wants to make this activity legal. At the core of all of this is the unresolved issue of invasion of privacy. Pre 911, the carnivore program was deemed an invasion of privacy and a violation of constitutional rights, post 911 its considered right, just, and proper. Sadly, our government and legislature are just now getting around to passing laws about the net… The cathc 22 is that its on one hand to little to late, and on the other any law is too much. Peopel who give up their freedom of speach and their freedom of press, and their right to privacy will fight tooth and nail to be able to download a song, a movie, and have dirty on-line chats. Bread and circus. -
February 16, 2008 at 7:52 am #2556635
abso, did you read my link on andrew jackson’s pardon?
by danlm · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to The pardon being proposed is not for _legitimate_ investigations
Isn’t that the same thing? Hell, his pardon was specific to the poor soldiers and not the well off that owned farms or plantations.
Dan
-
February 16, 2008 at 9:26 am #2556622
No, and I doubt I will. Presidential pardons are irrelevant to this topic.
by absolutely · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to abso, did you read my link on andrew jackson’s pardon?
The President is not currently offering such pardons. He doesn’t have the nuts to specify what he’d be pardoning and put his own name on it independently. Now that Congress has let the bill expire, I suspect he has some intense whining and moaning scheduled.
-
February 15, 2008 at 5:53 am #2664905
Well,
by inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to so tell me inklin, I really would like to know
Absolutely beat me to it (and probably said it better than I would have):
[i]The bill in question does not deal with cases of “a bloody good sign that you should be monitored,” it pardons ISPs & telcos for cooperating with wiretap requests without a warrant, without FISA approval, and without good-faith belief of any reasonable suspicion of the party or parties being monitored. There is no need for new legislation to make surveillance of legitimate suspects legal; that has been possible all along.[/i]
Only a member of the Judicial Branch of the government is able to determine if something is Constitutional or not?
Do you believe that Congress reads and/or understands 90% of the bills that they vote on? Or is it more likely that some of them read and understand, while most of them simply vote along party lines, as shown here by the Republicans?
Why spend the time explaining the process if you simply discard it by holding the opinion that this law is not wrong?
[i]The constitution is not broken unless any or all of those checks and balances are not adhered to.[/i]
Let me spell it out for you:
Article One, Section Nine of the Constitution of the United States of America states (among other things): [i]No…ex post facto Law shall be passed.[/i]
An ex post facto law is one that either makes a previously committed act legal when it was illegal at the time of commission, or vice versa.
What the telcos did was illegal when they did it.
Passing a law now that grants them immunity is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
It doesn’t take a law degree, nor are “checks and balances” necessary, to see that.
-
February 15, 2008 at 6:37 am #2664882
Immunity is not unconstitutional
by jdclyde · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Well,
I don’t know what fairy tail you have been reading, but that has LONG been a power/ability of the Judicial and is used all the time to get people to testify against their partners in crime.
Get off “Moveon.com” and think for yourself.
Your looking foolish. with that “unconstitutional” and “illegal” bits. You can complain that you don’t think it is “fair” for them to be granted immunity, but that is where the road ends.
-
February 15, 2008 at 8:25 am #2664796
Go read the replies above.
by inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Immunity is not unconstitutional
It is you whom are confusing the issue.
-
February 15, 2008 at 9:10 am #2664764
“Your looking foolish.” [nt]
by absolutely · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Immunity is not unconstitutional
.
-
February 15, 2008 at 11:42 am #2664700
Not exactly, JD
by tonythetiger · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Immunity is not unconstitutional
[i]I don’t know what fairy tail you have been reading, but that has LONG been a power/ability of the Judicial and is used all the time to get people to testify against their partners in crime.[/i]
It is the [b]prosecution[/b] (executive branch) that has the power to offer these deals… the same principle as pardons.
Judges can only judge what is asked of them to judge. He cannot make the prosecutor charge or not charge someone (although once in front of him, he [b]can[/b] dismiss the charges).
-
March 13, 2008 at 5:51 am #2575185
Wrongo!
by dr_zinj · about 16 years ago
In reply to so tell me inklin, I really would like to know
The judicial branch has been stacked by the President with the cooperation of Congress. As such, don’t expect ANY checks by this Supreme Court on the exercise of presidential power by G.W. Bush & Co.
With a majority of Republicans in Congress, and a bunch of ineffectual Democrats who more often than not agree with the GOP, Congress itself is stacked with this Administration.
G.W. has shown NO inclination to limit himself from ignoring the spirit or the letter of either the Declaration or the Constitution.
It’s the recipe for the perfect storm against personal freedoms. The aristocracy of America has always had a large amount of control of the government; but now it’s past the tipping point and is in a runaway state.
-
March 19, 2008 at 4:49 am #2548070
Majority of Republicans in Congress?
by inkling · about 16 years ago
In reply to Wrongo!
Was an election held that I wasn’t aware of?
Last I checked Democrats held the majority in both the House and the Senate.
You’re real mistake, however, is in believing that there is any kind of difference between parties and their stance on trampling the Constitution.
Republicans and Democrats are one and the same. Don’t believe the hype.
-
March 19, 2008 at 5:48 am #2548049
Always sad when you open your mouth, but don’t know what your saying
by jdclyde · about 16 years ago
In reply to Wrongo!
[i]”majority of Republicans in Congress”[/i]
wake up and smell the coffee. Your blind hate for Bush has subjected you to a case of stupiditis.
Read a book or something and you might learn something. The braindead drivel your getting from moveon is not serving you well.
-
April 11, 2008 at 6:21 am #2659430
Party membership doesn’t equal actions
by dr_zinj · about 15 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Always sad when you open your mouth, but don’t know what your saying
If it walks like a Republican, and quacks like a Republican, it’s a Republican; even if it says it’s a Democrate.
Perhaps it would have been better if I said, “Republicanesque”?
-
March 13, 2008 at 1:23 pm #2574942
until
by viztor · about 16 years ago
In reply to so tell me inklin, I really would like to know
They’re only going to listen until they’re sure they can trust you…
-
March 17, 2008 at 4:53 pm #2548732
re: …………..I really would like to know
by char-sebastian · about 16 years ago
In reply to so tell me inklin, I really would like to know
Oh, where do I start?
The issue has nothing to do with both parties being out of the country, but does because one party is in this country. Why monitor somone making/recieving a call from Afganistan. Because there many non-combatant CIVILIANS legitimately working for NGO’s trying to make life better for the people there and get the fledging democracy to work.“guilt by association” Apparently you have forgotten Joe McCarthy and the Army/McCarthy hearings of the early 50’s where many people’s careers and lives were destroyed (Often by Suicide) because of “guilt by association” from McCarthy’s witchhunts trying to ferret out imaginary communists from the US Government to accomplish nothing more than to further his own political asperations. His victims did nothing more treachorous than knowing somebody who joined the Communist party, or who themselves joined having innocently believed the marketing that the communist party stood for making a better world, or my personal favorite somebody telling McCarthy’s investigators (so they could get out from under the microscope and avoid their livihood or life destroyed) that so and so (Let us take a name at random)DanLM was a member. There were no checks and balances, no corroborating testimony, no forensic evidence, nothing. People were destroyed because nothing more than being painted with the finger of guilt.
And you can negate one of those checks and balances. If this bill get to George Bush he will very likely sign it.
And if passed and a test case gets before one of Bush’s lackey judges (Including the Supreme Court) the laws constitionality could very well be affirmed. Another one of those checks and balances out the window. Yes this sounds like a “slippery slope” fallacy. But could very well still happen.
Go see the movie “Good Night and Good Luck” and then see if you can raise the same arguements. It was never so true as itis about current events.
“We either learn from history or we are doomed to repeat it.”
PS. You spelled “balance” incorrectly.
-
March 19, 2008 at 4:57 am #2548068
A few things.
by inkling · about 16 years ago
In reply to re: …………..I really would like to know
Just an updat: the Democratically controlled Congress has refused to put in the bit about granting TELCOs immunity. G.W. has promised to veto because of this.
That doesn’t invalidate the fact that many members of Congress voted to violate the Constitution though.
Second, you spelled:
“someone”
“receiving”
“Afghanistan”
“fledgling”
“witch hunts”
“aspirations”
“treacherous”
“livelihood”
“gets”
“P.S.”incorrectly. Sorry, I couldn’t help myself…just poking fun.
-
-
-
February 15, 2008 at 1:23 pm #2664635
Without wading through all this, has the President’s role been mentioned?
by charliespencer · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Senate violates Constitution…
Inkling’s original post takes the Senate to task, but the extension / permanence of this bill is being enacted at President Bush’s request. I haven’t read everything here (including the original over-long post) but any criticism of Congress needs to be shared equally with the Executive branch. If passed by Congress, Bush will be equally culpable for his inevitable signing of it.
-
February 15, 2008 at 7:43 pm #2556775
You hit the nail on the head.
by inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Without wading through all this, has the President’s role been mentioned?
(Including the part about the original post being over-long, sorry about that.)
My problem, as it stands, is that the Senate voted to pass a law in violation of the Constitution.
-
-
February 15, 2008 at 5:12 pm #2556807
Can someone post a link that clarifies
by danlm · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Senate violates Constitution…
If the president is restricted to only pardoning an individual or not?
Preferably straight from the constitution stating individual. If not. Can someone post a link stating the president can’t pardon a group of individuals(read company’s).
If not, then the argument that the president can’t pardon the telecoms is just that. An argument until a ruling by the supreme court. Neither side has a leg to stand on is all I’m saying.
I found no verbage one way or another. Not saying its not there, I just want a verifiable link one way or another.
[edited to add]:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section2[i]Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. [/i]
Ok, is that the correct verbage of that specific section of the constitution. If so, where does it say that the president can not pardon the telcom. A company.
Yes Tony, I remember you posting this. I appolgigize for repetive posting.
Lets carry this further:
http://people.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=presidential-pardon.htm&url=http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9116918/Document-Andrew-Johnson-Proclamation-of-Amnesty-and-Pardon-for-the-Confederate-States
[i]On May 29, 1865, President Johnson issued a proclamation of amnesty and pardon for the citizens of those Confederate states that had not been restored under Lincoln’s Reconstruction policy. Generally in accord with Lincoln’s amnesty proclamation of December 8, 1863, Johnson’s proclamation differed on one major point. A lifelong supporter of small farmers and the lower classes in general, he specifically excluded the wealthy classes from the benefits of the proclamation.[/i]
Here is a historic example of the president pardoning a group of individuals, and not just one individual.Dan
-
February 15, 2008 at 7:44 pm #2556774
We can have this discussion, Dan.
by inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Can someone post a link that clarifies
But I want you to first realize that it has nothing to do with my original post.
-
February 15, 2008 at 8:46 pm #2556767
Inkling
by danlm · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to We can have this discussion, Dan.
You read up on your points. Even though I think you are completely wrong on this one. Like my better half said, you can propose anything you want as a law. Anything. Until it has passed, until it has been challenged, and until it has been ruled unconditional. No laws have been broken. The senate can vote all they want, it’s not a law yet. And the mood of the house, it won’t pass. Look at the immigration bill. That still hasn’t passed. It’s not law, and the president wanted that also. And pushed hard for it also.
The senators, in either party, did nothing against the law. Nothing. Other then wish in one hand, and chit in the other.
Please don’t take offense with me arguing my point. Especially sense I am neither backing this proposed law or defending it. I question certain aspects of it also. Not the same ones as you, and for totally different reasons. But, point being. I’m not backing it.
As far as the presidential pardon. Hell, that was being meant as a smart ass remark. Nothing more. Then I got curious about it, thus I posted the followup links.
So, with me putting forward my position on your original thread in a non ahole type of way. And explaining to you why I posted all the crap about presidential pardons.
If a president can broadly pardon a general category of people, thousands affected. Why can’t he pardon companies. And as every single link I found said about presidential pardons. Congress cant do squat about it. And pardons have been passed by every president except for 2, starting with George Washington. And if I remember my earlier reading about presidential pardons, the 2 that didn’t pass any died before they had the chance.
That part of the constitution does not indicate in its wording anything about individuals, groups of individuals, or business’s. It just states that the president has the power to grant pardons. My second link was what I considered a reliable source also. It was a law school of good reputation(at least I know of it). I wasn’t looking for conservative links, I was just looking for any links/sources. And thats exactly what I posted, what I considered the most reputable.
Dan
-
-
-
February 18, 2008 at 10:52 am #2557659
The Senate may have passed this
by tig2 · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Senate violates Constitution…
But Congress didn’t. It is not up for ratification again and it
was not extended. See http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=2063Seems that the Democrats collectively told Bush “No” due to
the automatic immunity clause for telecom providers.Interesting.
-
February 18, 2008 at 1:32 pm #2557567
Actually Tig
by jdclyde · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to The Senate may have passed this
In any of the coverage I have seen on this, that part has never been brought up.
It was more of a snub at Bush than anything else, because none of them could explain what was different this time around, when they voted for it the last time.
Political bickering once again gets in the way of any progress.
-
February 18, 2008 at 2:21 pm #2557541
Actually, JD
by inkling · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Actually Tig
Nancy Pelosi got something right for once.
Not only did they not pass this, but they allowed the “Protect (read: Enslave) America Act” to sunset.
It may have been meant solely as a snub to G.W., but it was the right thing to do.
-
February 18, 2008 at 7:09 pm #2558481
yeah
by jdclyde · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Actually, JD
we both know the only reason why this sunsetted though, and doing “the right thing” had nothing to do with it.
-
February 18, 2008 at 9:07 pm #2558454
yeah
by absolutely · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to yeah
we all know the only reason some wiretaps didn’t go through FISA, and catching “terrorists” had nothing to do with it.
-
February 18, 2008 at 9:13 pm #2558451
-
February 19, 2008 at 1:29 pm #2559396
-
-
-
February 19, 2008 at 5:09 pm #2559279
Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to Wiretaps
by jdclyde · about 16 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Senate violates Constitution…
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jyusZ2V1ACKGV2iJuGVmuPUERi_QD8UTICG00
(Just in case the link gets broken)
ACLU, despite knowing to sue over a law, you have to have been charged with it or damaged by it, tried to sue anyways. They got slapped down, again.
[i]”The ACLU sued on behalf of itself, other lawyers, reporters and scholars, arguing that the program was illegal and that they had been forced to alter how they communicate with foreigners who were likely to have been targets of the wiretapping.”[/i]
So they admit that they are in contact with known terrorists?
[i]”Last August, Congress made temporary changes to FISA that made the warrantless wiretapping legal in some instances and also extended immunity from lawsuits to telecommunications companies that help with the intercepts.”[/i]
What Congress giveth, they taketh away when politically advantageous?
-
March 13, 2008 at 5:56 am #2575180
a vote for democracy
by gordon_zigenbine · about 16 years ago
In reply to Senate violates Constitution…
From Australia please vote it down. The Constitution in both our countries is democratically fragile. Government is the servant of the people. If government has lost that meaning then democracy needs to find another word. The US refuses to give up total control over internet traffic which poses a global risk to democracy if spy taps like this are set up. That opens the doors to excuses for the next cold war. The US has always been seen by people here as an epitome of democracy
-
March 13, 2008 at 6:54 am #2575137
What the Bill S. 2248 REALLY says.
by dr_zinj · about 16 years ago
In reply to Senate violates Constitution…
The text of the bill is located at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2248
While some of the bill requires adherence to the 4th Amendment – i.e. they have to get a warrant to tap. It also states that they can not “intentionally” tap the conversations of someone in the United States – it doesn’t say what they can do if they just happen to come across a domestic conversation.
As for physical searches, it gives carte blanche to the Attorney General to authorize searches without warrant provided the special court is notified within a WEEK.
Any information discovered without the special court approval of the search is inadmissible within a court of law UNLESS the Attorney General says it involves the threat of death or serious bodily harm.
What this law does is give WAY TOO MUCH POWER into the hands of the Attorney General and the people he or she delegates this authority to.
Of course in the current environment, the minute things get too hot for the AG’s running dogs, all he has to do is recommend the president designate the person an enemy combatant and the whole thing (and people) disappears into a black hole.
As for the telecoms, the bill specifically says if they coughed up the data at the demand of the intelligence community, then they get a get out of jail free pass and can’t be prosecuted (or fined).
-
March 15, 2008 at 3:20 pm #2575451
Way to go PennsylF’nTucky
by kth_barbour · about 16 years ago
In reply to Senate violates Constitution…
I just moves back to this state after a 10yr absense and I am now wondering if I could have done worse!? I want to say Senators Specter and Casey, I am glad I never voted for you and I never will. I believe that you should be impeached for violation of the Constitution of the Uneted Stated Of America. I hope the masses will finally stand up to those in charge and realize what Ben Franklin said “Those who would sacrifice freedom for safety, deserve neither”!!!!!
America needs to stand up for itself before it is too late.
-
March 17, 2008 at 2:22 pm #2548794
Liability
by altotus · about 16 years ago
In reply to Senate violates Constitution…
Not about pardons its about liability that is damages. Money $$$$$ Big $$$$ Very Big Money $$$.The damaged are not Islamic militants. They Have Lawyers. The US has been careful to deny lawyers to incarcerated militants. SO who are we talking about? Well phone company’s are not talking and there worried about the liability being enough to break them so just what were they up to? There should be no liability if the law was followed. So we can assume the law was violated.
-
March 17, 2008 at 2:45 pm #2548783
I would respond, but…
by previso9 · about 16 years ago
In reply to Senate violates Constitution…
George and Dick already have your number.
-
March 17, 2008 at 7:14 pm #2548696
Senate violates Constitution… Thank God for a literate post
by char-sebastian · about 16 years ago
In reply to Senate violates Constitution…
Thank you for your (literate) post. There is hope yet What has happened to (high school) civics, history of the Joe McCarthy-Army McCarthy hearings or even more recently the Nixon administration?
I am to young to know or even remember Joe McCarthy but certainly studied him and his escapades.
And quoting from “West Wing,” the final season, If you require a religous test of your candidates, it will be the easiest lie they ever told. Oh, sure, some of them will tell you the truth, but most of them won’t
-Alan Alda as the Republican
candidate for President -
March 17, 2008 at 10:01 pm #2547636
Not to be Rude
by rjacksix · about 16 years ago
In reply to Senate violates Constitution…
You know, I don’t want to start a flame war, and I am generally a sane, reserved individual who is not given to profanity, but…GO TO HELL…I have been in the intelligence community…they love this country more than you EVER freaking will and they are trying to keep YOU and YOUR FAMILY and FRIENDS SAFE. I am absolutely tired of mindless twits like you posting crap like this.
You haven’t a clue of how much these people desire to destroy EVERYTHING that you have, and convert you or kill you at the blade of a sword.
How dare you impune those who put their lives on hold and work long hours for scarce pay and NO THANKS so that you can post your ill-conceived ideas.
-
March 19, 2008 at 7:10 am #2547998
“Been in the intelligence community.”
by inkling · about 16 years ago
In reply to Not to be Rude
That’s pretty vague. Of course, I’m sure you have to keep it that way, or you’d have to kill me. Right?!
Well, I haven’t been in the intelligence community, per se. I have, however, served in the Marine Corps. I did two tours in Iraq. I’ve been shot at and watched my friends be shot. I attended their funerals.
Believe me, I’ve done my time working long hours in hellish conditions for crap pay with little to no thanks. You wouldn’t know that though. Because I don’t use it as an excuse for anything. I made the choice to serve my country so you certainly won’t hear me whining about it.
I know very well the price that is being paid. I’m also well aware that the price may be even greater.
I’m also well aware that the intelligence community had every single tool they needed to prevent 9/11. They had the laws they needed. They had the surveillance they needed. They had the manpower they needed. They had the funding they needed.
There are two main reasons it wasn’t stopped:
1. Human error – unwillingness to share information, etc.
2. If someone is willing to die for their cause, they will find a way to achieve their goals. You can’t stop everything, every time. Period.We don’t need the Patriot Act to keep us safe. We don’t need our elected politicians to throw away the Constitution to make us safe.
Sell your “blade of the sword” crap somewhere else. Our government has, for a long while, possessed all the tools they need to keep us safe.
-
April 11, 2008 at 5:51 pm #2659168
Actually, you’ve forgotten
by michaelstn · about 15 years, 11 months ago
In reply to “Been in the intelligence community.”
that some of the agencies were forbidden by internal RULES (as opposed to LAWS) from communicating with each other.
Plus, in an otherwise intelligent rant, you neglected to explain how this law, if signed into law, would be unconstitutional. You’ve stated it, now prove it.
-
-
April 12, 2008 at 9:42 am #2660002
This is the reason
by altotus · about 15 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Not to be Rude
The people that “protect” us are the greatest threat to the constitution county people and liberty that exists or can exist. The fore fathers of this nation understood this. Evidently from this post the people responsible for this duty do not understand this.
-
-
March 19, 2008 at 8:23 am #2546943
I’ve changed my view, slightly.
by tonythetiger · about 16 years ago
In reply to Senate violates Constitution…
I have come to believe that the immunity part is unconstitutional, but not for the reason you suggest.
I believe it actually violates the FIRST amendment… Congress may not pass laws which limit the [people’s] right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
-
April 12, 2008 at 9:34 am #2660004
Civil damages
by altotus · about 15 years, 11 months ago
In reply to Senate violates Constitution…
Is this about the money for civil damages as the criminal intent is simply ignored by law enforcement just like extrajudicial execution?
-
-
AuthorReplies