Posted on 12/18/2003 8:10:02 AM PST by Dog
Breaking...
But the court's point is that a detainment such as Padilla's is not an inherent executive power. Congressional permission--as has always occurred in the past, according to the court--isn't too much to ask, imo.
Well, I guess it doesn't.
Evidently [Congress is] satisfied that President Bush is executing the war on terror within the parameters they set forth.
If that's the case, they shouldn't have any problem passing specific legislation allowing Padilla-like citizen detentions. Personally, I don't think that's too much to ask. I like checks and balances.
Think the courts will approve? LOL
You are just a worry wort.
I worry, because I have plenty of just cause to worry. Are you really so naive as to believe that all of the rights granted the people and the states, in the Constitution, are still in tact?
Look at the 10th Amendment. It has been subverted so many times that, for all intents and purposes, it may as well not exist. Hate crimes laws are a violation of the 1st Amendment, as are limits on individual contributions to political campaigns. There are numerous examples of subversion of the 2nd Amendment, including the major laws that I mentioned previously, going back to 1934, plus the Brady Bill. In fact, the only amendment that has not been subverted, is the 3rd Amendment, concerning boarding troops in private homes.
If our Founding Fathers could somehow come back and read the entire US Code today, they would be appalled at how far we have strayed from the "original intent" of the Constitution.
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
--- Thomas Jefferson (letter to William Johnson) June 12, 1823
The problem that we have today, is that we have a President who is trying what meaning he may squeeze out of the Constitution or may be invented against it, instead of jealously defending the original intent of that great document.
Wendell Phillips warned us that "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." The word "eternal" doesn't mean, just when the Democrats are in office. We must never let down our guard, even when the Republicans are in office, especially since there are so many Republicans in office today, who are Republican, in name only. Phillips understood that politicians of every stripe are, by the very disposition that makes them want to be politicians, power-hungry. If we are not eternally vigilant, those power-hungry politicians will slowly usurp that power, that they so greatly desire.
I think that the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy had it right. In that book, the President of the Galaxy was the person who least wanted the job. Unfortunately, this is not science fiction and 90+% of the people who run for any office, do so, not out of a desire to serve, but out of a desire for power. And, that's why we should all worry and be eternally vigilant, even when the Republicans are in office - especially so, when many of those Republicans have already demonstrated their contempt for the Constitution.
If being eternally vigilant for usurpations of our Constitution, makes one a worry wart, then that's a badge that I will gladly wear with pride. You still enjoy what rights you have, because throughout the history of this great nation, it has been the worry warts, like me, who have jealously defended the rights of the unconcerned, like you.
Judges can close portions of trials to the public, and require that defense attorneys have a clearance. The government managed in espionage cases, they can manage in this one too. The whole national security line is a lever by Ashcroft to be able to play Werner Best of the Gestappo (thanks again for the link aristeides, I've done some research since then).
So true.
The problem that we have today, is that we have a President who is trying what meaning he may squeeze out of the Constitution or may be invented against it, instead of jealously defending the original intent of that great document.
Now that statement is just plain silly.
Whatever disagreements a person may have with W, and I have many, he is not someone who is inventing ways to subvert the constitution. He is a dedicated patriot who loves his country and is trying his best to keep us from getting our asses blown of the face of the planet.
We still have to remember that 9/11 did happen and these islamopsychos will hit us much harder if and when they can.
There was a law for that specific to WWII. But now the conditions of revocation include "...performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." If he didn't intend to, he doesn't lose it.
Padilla should either be charged or released. Locking up a citizen of a respective state and keeping them indefinitely is lincolnian
There is little doubt that we 'will' be at war for decades to come. This is a war that knows no boundaries and is probably the most serious challenge to our freedoms because of it's nebulous nature. It will span many presidential terms.
We are not at war in the traditional sense in that we can vanquish a nation and then it's basically over. This war has just begun.
And it's a war that has been waged questionably from a Constitutional standpoint at best. I just hope that men like Jim Baker and Colin Powell can have an influence on this administration and by second term, if there is one, push some of these neocons out of decision making positions within the administration
I somewhat agree with you there.
Which particular neocons would you most like to have replaced?
Who would be an example of a good replacement for these positions in your mind?
Interesting, also, how no one has any problem with the little sleight of hand on his detention. He was taken into custody by Justice. BUT, to avoid these Constitutional problems, he was then handed over to DoD and socked away in the brig. That ain't America.
:-} Well, we'll have to disagree there. Congress seems satisfied that it did. Two judges on the second circuit differ. I'll side with Congress on this one.
If that's the case, they shouldn't have any problem passing specific legislation allowing Padilla-like citizen detentions. Personally, I don't think that's too much to ask.
Worm-like would be more apt but Congress should do what Congress should do, not what two judges on the Second Circuit tell them to do imo.
I like checks and balances.
So do I but from where I sit, it is the federal judiciary that is in the most urgent need of checking and balancing. Maybe even a rotation of the tires.
But these are simply the opinions of an amateur.
I believe I misunderstood your point here. If you are suggesting that Congress should address Padilla-like characters in the code to clarify matters for the future, I'd agree with that.
I'd even agree that they should use the term "Padilla-like".:-}
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.