quote:
Drysart had this to say about Captain Planet:
That's what they said about the Patriot Act. That it'd only be used against TERRORISTS -- like people who run adult establishments in Nevada, and the [redacted] that the ACLU is helping [redacted] file a [redacted] court case against.
redacted??
wtfy?
quote:
Abbikat had this to say about Cuba:
redacted??
wtfy?
re·dact - To make ready for publication; edit or revise
See the court documents for the ACLU's recent lawsuit against the Department of Justice with regard to the Patriot Act's secret "National Security Letters" -- the ability for the FBI to gather detailed, previously private information about usage of communications networks by U.S. Citizens, with the added ability that 1) they don't require a judge's approval, 2) an ISP is served with one, the ISP is prohibited by law from telling you that they had to turn over your private information, and 3) the FBI has no obligation to ever tell you or anyone that they got your private information, even if nothing ever comes of the investigation it pertained to.
A good half of the court documents challening the law as unconstitutional were redacted before public release because they describe a (seemingly abusive since there's ground for a lawsuit over it) use of the law.
Oh, and speaking of checks and balances... did you know that Republicans in Congress are working a bill through committee that would make it illegal for Federal Judges (including the Supreme Court) to declare laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional? Yes, really. Drysart fucked around with this message on 05-03-2004 at 11:41 PM.
quote:
A sleep deprived Drysart stammered:
Oh, and speaking of checks and balances... did you know that Republicans in Congress are working a bill through committee that would make it illegal for Federal Judges (including the Supreme Court) to declare laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional? Yes, really.
O_o
link please?
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Skaw fucked around with this message on 05-04-2004 at 02:45 AM.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Drysart!
Oh, and speaking of checks and balances... did you know that Republicans in Congress are working a bill through committee that would make it illegal for Federal Judges (including the Supreme Court) to declare laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional? Yes, really.
I call bullshit. Until I see something in the Congressional Record, I call bullshit.
If it's a joke, it's nicely subtle and ironic though.
quote:
Callalron stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
I call bullshit. Until I see something in the Congressional Record, I call bullshit.If it's a joke, it's nicely subtle and ironic though.
Apparently it's a bit of an older issue, from about a month or two ago. I did a bit of hunting, and found a link to the proposal from an article (yes, the article is a highly biased editorial, but that's all I could find in under a minute). As a quick summary, it seems to be built so that congress can overturn federal court decisions. I'd be absolutely shocked if it passed; it seems to be designed mainly to get a politician's name out to those voters annoyed by current judicial decisions. It seems quite real, though.
As for the main issue of "enemy combatants"... as a libertarian at heart, that one polarizes me more than anything since his recommendation for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages. As a quick hypothetical, I've got quite a few friends who are very chummy with several enviromentalist groups: going to rallies, etc. Let's say one of those groups decides to go militant and start blowing up oil refineries, and is (rightly) declared a terrorist organization. Suddenly, my friends become, in the government's eyes, possible terrorists (as they associated with the groups for years beforehand, even if they never took part in the more extreme factions). If this is decided the wrong way, they no longer have a right to trial, etc., with evidence examined in public view. A man in the president's office decides they're a "substantial risk", and they dissappear into a government holding facility. Treated with the utmost care for however many years that man in an office decides to hold them. That's... horrifying to every bit of libertarian in me.
The difference between the "war on terror", and a normal war, is that, by everyone's admission, fighting terroists only reduces terrorism, it doesn't eliminate it. We're going to be fighting this for years, probably decades. We can't operate as though we're in a state of emergency, which is what those "enemy combatant" laws are for. Chalesm fucked around with this message on 05-04-2004 at 03:57 AM.
In the beginning the Universe was created.Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
edit: Hmmm, or Chalesm is probably right. Zair fucked around with this message on 05-04-2004 at 03:50 AM.
quote:
Mod's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
It's this one.
It's a liberal conspiracy.
Seriously though, this seems to be a rather frightening thing. Unrestricted power is not a good thing. Zaza fucked around with this message on 05-04-2004 at 07:25 AM.
He does have a point. Why do five people or however many are Supreme Justices or whatever they call them have the power to overturn a bill by the Congress?
quote:
From the book of Jens, chapter 3, verse 16:
I dunno, really.He does have a point. Why do five people or however many are Supreme Justices or whatever they call them have the power to overturn a bill by the Congress?
Because bills by the congress are not supposed to clash with the constitution, those people are appointed to make sure this doesn't happen. The constitution can be amended through a lenghty process if it is neccesary. Honestly I prefer it to the system we have in Austria where we had the gas price in our constitution for a while because it's so easy to change for a broad coalition.
quote:
Jens Model 2000 was programmed to say:
I dunno, really.He does have a point. Why do five people or however many are Supreme Justices or whatever they call them have the power to overturn a bill by the Congress?
Because in the US, the supreme court is what most seperates us from a full, grecian democracy, and eliminates the worst of democracy's flaws. The people that the country elects find the best people to fill those nine slots. The nine justices in the supreme court are appointed for life, so that there exists a branch indepent of *all* political pressures. They are now individuals who dedicate their life towards making the right decision, rather than the popular decision, unlike every politician in existance.
They're in place so that a sudden political fad (whether it be liberal or conservative) is unable to change the face of our country in less than a generation; in that way they form a constant. In a hypothetical, imagine that the US hatred of Islam had gotten much worse than it did after 9/11, and that a majority of people were calling for the banning of the islamic religion. In the US, the supreme court ensures that it would take nearly a generation for such a change to be made, as the current supreme court would declare any religious banning unconstitutional, regardless of who was elected, or what bills or laws were made. They *can* be overridden, but only by a constitutional amendment, which is the most drastic course of action one can take in our government, a step that few are *ever* willing to take, even if they agree with the content of the possible amendment.
At the same time, the Supreme court is the branch that can make logically necessary, but unpopular decisions like de-segregation. An impressive number of rights, both minority and special situational rights, come *directly* from judicial decisions, not laws. If the people disagree enough with those decisions, eventually new justices are appointed who will overturn them, but usually after 20 years, everyone agrees it was a good idea after all (these justices are very bright individuals, they're not wrong very often in retrospect). So no permanent harm to the country is done even if they're wrong, but they allow unusual things to happen that might not be able to otherwise.
The supreme court justices are the US barrier to, funnily enough, majority rule. The democratic flaw of "51% takes advantage of 49% of the people" is avioded by having those justices in place as they are, to ensure our elected officals don't cross over the rights of smaller groups. Is it a perfect system? No. But it seems to work remarkably well. Chalesm fucked around with this message on 05-04-2004 at 02:55 PM.
In the beginning the Universe was created.Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
quote:
If Jens was a glacier, they'd be a fast one:
I dunno, really.He does have a point. Why do five people or however many are Supreme Justices or whatever they call them have the power to overturn a bill by the Congress?
Because the bill is unconstitutional. It's called checks and balances.
quote:
Chalesm likes to scream this out during sex:
At the same time, the Supreme court is the branch that can make logically necessary, but unpopular decisions like de-segregation. An impressive number of rights, both minority and special situational rights, come *directly* from judicial decisions, not laws. If the people disagree enough with those decisions, eventually new justices are appointed who will overturn them, but usually after 20 years, everyone agrees it was a good idea after all (these justices are very bright individuals, they're not wrong very often in retrospect). So no permanent harm to the country is done even if they're wrong, but they allow unusual things to happen that might not be able to otherwise.
Be careful how you word things. The Supreme Court does not create laws or policies, they are not a legislative body. The conservitives responsible for this bill would have you think they simply make up whatever law they want reguardless of what the majority thinks, but what they do is the exact opposite. They simply evaluate them against our governing document and declare if they are valid or not. Think of them as the graders of congress's work. Congress can pass whatever crazy law they want if they have the majority's support- but that doesn't mean that the law is valid. Any ruling of the law can be challenged by a citizen of the united states and the courts can decide if the law is legal.
quote:
Blindy. had this to say about Robocop:
Because the bill is unconstitutional. It's called checks and balances.
Whoa duder, you don't have to get all riled up over it.
I was really just wondering, I don't know how it works. It just struck me as kind of weird. 
Some use this line of thought to argue that Congress can remove the power of judicial review from the courts.
Thinking about your posts
(and billing you for it) since 2001
Here in the UK for example Tony Blair is actually going as far as to actually embark on constitutional reform to remove the power of other bodies (specifically the House of Lords and the Law Lords, the Law Lords being the equivalent of the US supreme court). Now we don't have the equivalent of the US constitution but both these bodies have acted as checks to the power of the executive and Blair has been doing his best to defang both.
The entire matter is more complicated and has more details associated with it than I can convey in my tired and slightly inebriated state.
