Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Youre view of the 14th ammendment is different than mine and until the issue reaches the high courts we will never agree. Secession peaceful or not is a rebellion against the US and therfore is outlawed under the 14th amendment as states or elected officials are banned from participating in a rebellion against the union. Therefore I believe that all those that "participate" in secession are traitors and have no constitutional rights. I find it ironoc that breaking up america is american in your mind.
I guess we have different views on the 14th. I think you are confusing that my belief that secession is American is also and advocacy for breaking up America. I do not advocate it for juvenile reason, but I will advocate it if the federal government keeps growing in size and power all while practicing fiscal tyranny. People, not just Americans, have an intrinsic right to peacefully break free of their government when their government becomes destructive--in order to establish a better form of governance.
I also disagree with you on habeas corpus. I think every individual (even non-Americans) should be safeguarded against arbitrary state action to detain them indefinitely without a reason. If you want to try some for treason, then that is a valid charge (depending on the definition), but to imprison someone with no reason is one of the most unjust actions. I am sorry to hear that you don't think people should be protected against this injustice during times of civil war and could be imprisoned without even being charged for treason.
I guess we have different views on the 14th. I think you are confusing that my belief that secession is American is also and advocacy for breaking up America. I do not advocate it for juvenile reason, but I will advocate it if the federal government keeps growing in size and power all while practicing fiscal tyranny. People, not just Americans, have an intrinsic right to peacefully break free of their government when their government becomes destructive--in order to establish a better form of governance.
I also disagree with you on habeas corpus. I think every individual (even non-Americans) should be safeguarded against arbitrary state action to detain them indefinitely without a reason. If you want to try some for treason, then that is a valid charge (depending on the definition), but to imprison someone with no reason is one of the most unjust actions. I am sorry to hear that you don't think people should be protected against this injustice during times of civil war and could be imprisoned without even being charged for treason.
Actually I agree with your second point comletely. John Locke is an amzing writer but I don't see the connection with whats happening today. I uderstand the worry about the current spending but many economist agree that it's necessary. I don't see how you can acuse the federal government of fiscal tyranny when taxes haven't risen. Its the cost of living that has risen and wages haven't, so if you ask me the gripe shouldn't be with government but with the private sector.
I support taking terrorists off the battlefield, and I personally could care less if they are held in uncomfortable prisons in a far away land.
Right, I support that too, but that isn't what's at stake here. Its not really about "the battlefield". How Obama could manage to end up on the wrong side of such a clear cut issue is beyond me. It looks like once again he is caving to the political pressure for the sake of his famous "consensus-building". I don't think he should be doing that on the "character issues"
Quote:
Quote:
In the wake of the Boumediene ruling, the U.S. Government wanted to preserve the power to abduct people from around the world and bring them to American prisons without having to provide them any due process. So, instead of bringing them to our Guantanamo prison camp (where, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, they were entitled to habeas hearings), the Bush administration would instead simply send them to our prison camp in Bagram, Afghanistan, and then argue that because they were flown to Bagram rather than Guantanamo, they had no rights of any kind and Boudemiene didn't apply to them.
Quote:
Quote:
The Obama DOJ is now squarely to the Right of an extremely conservative, pro-executive-power, Bush 43-appointed judge on issues of executive power and due-process-less detentions. Leave aside for the moment the issue of whether you believe that the U.S. Government should have the right to abduct people anywhere in the world, ship them to faraway prisons and hold them there indefinitely without charges or any rights at all. The Bush DOJ -- and now the Obama DOJ -- maintain the President does and should have that right, and that's an issue that has been extensively debated.
Right, I support that too, but that isn't what's at stake here. Its not really about "the battlefield". How Obama could manage to end up on the wrong side of such a clear cut issue is beyond me. It looks like once again he is caving to the political pressure for the sake of his famous "consensus-building". I don't think he should be doing that on the "character issues"
How Obama could end up on the wrong side is really quite simple to me.
You cannot be in a position of power, without your obligations creating ambiguities. Obama has an obligation to provide leadership to the people of this country. Politically, socially, morally. He may find the acts of the previous administration utterly egregious, but he has to work within the framework the Constitution provides him. He can condemn their acts, but if fails to defend their ability to commit those acts, he undermines the power of the office.
For example: say Congress passes a law saying that schools must contact parents before imposing disciplinary measures on children. Not classroom discipline, but school system discipline, like barring the child from extracurricular activities, or suspension or expulsion. Parents should be informed, and have the opportunity for appeal. And say that President A vetoes the bill. Reason doesn't matter, I'm not trying to open the door to a different off-topic debate. Then President A leaves office, and President B comes in. President B believes that this law should be implemented. The government is even being sued about it. President B's Department of Justice are the lawyers representing the government when it's being sued. They are lawyers, they take a professional oath where they promise to represent their client to the best of their ability, regardless of their personal feelings in any case. The Department of Justice lawyers are obligated, therefore, to provide the best defense possible to their client, the US Government. Even when this means defending in court a policy which the administration they are a part of has hopes to change. President B also has an obligation to the office. He can be a weak President, letting Congress usurp Presidential powers, but if he hopes to be an advocate of change, this would be poor strategy. He can be a strong President, but that means defending the powers of the office. Even those powers which he would otherwise repudiate, because those powers are not solely the powers of the person in office, they are the powers of the office itself.
Can you not have a discussion without the ascenine and more often juvenile comments? Who said anything about or even eluded to color?
Is this your way of having the "Final say" by making statements that just make people not want to deal with a discussion with you? It makes me wonder, how many actually have you on ignore?
Last edited by blackandproud; 04-23-2009 at 09:53 AM..
"Barak Obama's Q & A" from the Boston Globe, dated December 20, 2007:
Quote:
9. Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?
Apparently the Affirmative Action President has a reading comprehension problem. And they claim he is a "constitutional scholar?" ROFLMAO! Only if I'm the Pope.
Quote:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Source: Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the US Constitution
Clearly Habeas Corpus is a privilege, and not a right as Obama claims. It is very apparent from his answers in the Boston Globe article that Obama does not have the first clue regarding the US Constitution.
Apparently the Affirmative Action President has a reading comprehension problem. And they claim he is a "constitutional scholar?" ROFLMAO! Only if I'm the Pope.
Clearly Habeas Corpus is a privilege, and not a right as Obama claims. It is very apparent from his answers in the Boston Globe article that Obama does not have the first clue regarding the US Constitution.
Change the bold to habeus corpus shall not be suspended, and um, it would appear that Obama has a passing familiarity with the US Constitution.
Change the bold to habeus corpus shall not be suspended, and um, it would appear that Obama has a passing familiarity with the US Constitution.
But that is not what it says. It begins with "The Privilege" in capitals for emphasis, so there can be no mistake that the writ of Habeus Corpus is NOT an inherent right. It goes on further to provide examples of when this privilege may be (and has been) suspended.
According to our Affirmative Action President the US Constitution considers the writ of Habeus Corpus an inherent right. He is obviously flat out wrong and does not know what the US Constitution says.
No matter how much you try to lie and spin in order to cover Obama's obvious ignorance on the subject, there is no escaping the fact that he was, and still is, wrong.
But that is not what it says. It begins with "The Privilege" in capitals for emphasis, so there can be no mistake that the writ of Habeus Corpus is NOT an inherent right. It goes on further to provide examples of when this privilege may be (and has been) suspended.
According to our Affirmative Action President the US Constitution considers the writ of Habeus Corpus an inherent right. He is obviously flat out wrong and does not know what the US Constitution says.
No matter how much you try to lie and spin in order to cover Obama's obvious ignorance on the subject, there is no escaping the fact that he was, and still is, wrong.
It becomes a RIGHT when the Constitution accords that "Privilege" protection.
See, no spin, no lies. One sentence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Habeus Corpus
