Texas Republican Party Platform Thread 9

Brown County GOP Website ^ | June, 2002 | Republican Party of Texas

[Bigun]

...but it doesn't say anything about prosecuting a foreign terrorist, or even investigating such an act after it happened.

Then Sir, what would be your intrepetation of this:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[Bigun]

See #41.

[Flyer]

I think I am going to withdraw my vote on this and change it to "Abstain". These are some deep constitutional issues that I don't think I have the knowledge to properly judge.

[Bigun]

When it comes to national defense and terrorism we need some federal law enforcement, but where so you draw the line? Many of the huge number of agencies that have law enforcement authority can and should be done away with.

May I add a very big

A M E N ! ! to that?

[Dog Gone]

You're arguing against yourself. You concede that the Federal Government has the right to pass laws, but your endorsement of this plank indicates that you don't want them to be able to enforce them.

Specifically, you want their powers to pass and enforce laws with criminal penalties to the specific things mentioned in the plank, which would not, by the way, include punishment for terrorist acts against non-Federal targets like the World Trade Center.

So which is it?

[Bigun]

Specifically, you want their powers to pass and enforce laws with criminal penalties to the specific things mentioned in the plank, which would not, by the way, include punishment for terrorist acts against non-Federal targets like the World Trade Center.

I would argue that I have been consistent in my arguments! The federal governments power to prosecute would include ALL those areas which have been SPECIFICALLY given them by the states. Everything else falls to the states but nothing I have said nor is there anything in the Constitution I have seen, which would prevent federal law enforcement officers from cooperating with state officials in the bringing the perps. of such crimes as you mention to justice in whatever state the offence occured! In fact,I think it would be required.

[Dog Gone]

Is the prosecution of Whatizface Moussaoui in Federal Court for being the "20th hijacker" unconstitutional?

[Bigun]

Is the prosecution of Whatizface Moussaoui in Federal Court for being the "20th hijacker" unconstitutional?

Dunno! I am not up to speed on the case and, in fact, do not know what the SPECIFIC charges against him are. I will TRY and correct that defiency on my part over the weekend and then further respond.

Meanwhile Friday night my wife and I have a long standing date so I won't be on the computer but I WILL return eventually!

[Dog Gone]

Well, if your date was supposed to be down at the Kemah Boardwalk, you had better check the Weather Channel first.

[Bigun]

Well, if your date was supposed to be down at the Kemah Boardwalk, you had better check the Weather Channel first.

LOL! No! Alas tis in College Station.

Up here we DESPERATELY need the rain this system will bring!

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

LOL! No! Alas tis in College Station.

Up here we DESPERATELY need the rain this system will bring!

Sad to say, rain will not improve the generally low IQ in that area!

[Bigun]

Sad to say, rain will not improve the generally low IQ in that area!

Perhaps not, but there is the possibility that enough of it could drown some of those heretics to the south! ;>)

[Mike4Freedom]

It is not just the BATF that would go away, but the DEA as well. Both good results. We don't need JBTs stealing medicine from sick people.

[Bigun]

Is the prosecution of Whatizface Moussaoui in Federal Court for being the "20th hijacker" unconstitutional?

Based on Count #1 of The Indictment I would say no.

I would also state that there is NOTHING I know of which would prevent his being adequately tried, for the named offences, in the courts of any state of these United States.

Do YOU know of anything which would prevent that? I'm no lawyer as you WELL know.

[Dog Gone]

He couldn't be tried for these specific charges, because they are specific violations of Federal law. The state laws under which he could be charged are far more generic, probably along the lines of conspiracy to commmit murder and larceny.

All I'm trying to do is get you to admit that Congress is authorized to pass criminal laws in furtherance and support of the legitimate constitutional functions granted to the Federal Government, even if they're not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, as outlined in the plank we're discussing.

You've already admitted as much in your responses so far, including this one where you agree that it's proper for Moussaoui to be prosecuted in Federal Court. That's why this plank is wrong from a Constitutional standpoint.

[Bigun]

All I'm trying to do is get you to admit that Congress is authorized to pass criminal laws in furtherance and support of the legitimate constitutional functions granted to the Federal Government, even if they're not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, as outlined in the plank we're discussing.

OK! Perhaps I am dense but would you please be kind enough to point out where either I, or this plank, have said otherwise.

[Bigun]

BTW! All I am trying to get you to do is admit that they should confine themselves to those function SPECIFICALLY given them in the Constitution! ;>)

[Dog Gone]

Well, the plank states federal law-enforcement powers have criminal jurisdiction limited to the high seas, federal installations, and counterfeiting operations, and you gave the plank a perfect 10.

I don't think Federal law enforcement powers are limited to those three areas, and now it appears that you don't, either. So, now what?

[Bigun]

I don't think Federal law enforcement powers are limited to those three areas, and now it appears that you don't, either.

AH! The nub appears!

Let me be SURE that I understand you here. Your position, as I understand it, is that any federal agent, with law enforcment powers, can go anywhere he wishes and do whatever he wishes, pursuant to enforcing federal law, WITHOUT the consultation or cooperation of properly constituted local and state law enforcement agencies. Is that correct?

[Dog Gone]

You have completely lost me. Where did I say anything about consultation with local authorities?