Skip to comments.
Mr. White House Counsel, meet the Constitution
SFGate.com ^
| September 10, 2002
| David R. Henderson
Posted on 09/11/2002 5:44:46 AM PDT by Boonie Rat
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:57 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-87 next last
We don't want him to look like some monster who destroyed our freedom. Trust us."Hahahahahahahaha! Trust us!! Alberto, you crack me up!! I'm from the government, trust me!! Hahahahahaha!
Boonie Rat
MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66
To: Boonie Rat
The Constitution simply does not provide for Congress to declare war when the nation has been attacked.
2
posted on
09/11/2002 5:53:34 AM PDT
by
muawiyah
Comment #3 Removed by Moderator
To: Boonie Rat; ppaul; ex-snook; kidd; Snuffington; Inspector Harry Callahan; JohnHuang2; GeronL; ...
"The Constitution is not based on trust, but on distrust." Bears repeating.
To: kenwood
The problem is: Gonzales is a lawyer, too. I don't hold lawyers in the highest regard. I would like to see a non-lawyer on the Supreme Court--which is quite legal.
5
posted on
09/11/2002 6:01:19 AM PDT
by
Pushi
To: kenwood
". I am a lawyer"
May God have mercy on your soul.:~)
6
posted on
09/11/2002 6:01:29 AM PDT
by
verity
To: Boonie Rat
I didn't need to be the one to remind him: The students did the job and much more.
Hurrah!!
To: muawiyah
The Constitution simply does not provide for Congress to declare war when the nation has been attacked.Huh?
To: kenwood
This is a wonderful article. I am a lawyer. We, as lawyers are all well grounded in the Constitution. Gonzales is a political hack trying to get on the Supreme Court by telling his boss what he wants to hear but he is so outrageously wrong.Just what FR needed, another lib RAT lawyer. Everything you said is your opinion, not fact. Just as my opinion of lib RAT lawyers is my own opinion. Also, in my opinion I don't believe congress has to declare war for the president to respond to an attack on our country.
9
posted on
09/11/2002 6:04:53 AM PDT
by
ChuckHam
To: Boonie Rat
"In his speech, Gonzalez tried to justify not just war without a congressional declaration, but also the government's decision to imprison U.S. citizens such as Jose Padilla, the alleged "dirty bomber," without charging them with a crime or allowing them a lawyer. Padilla is now in a military prison in South Carolina."
I was listening to a "Town Meeting" on KVET in Austin,Texas this morning. The meeting consisted of several local Radio personalities debating the detainment of the suspected terrorists. One of the Disk Jockies known as "Bama" Brown said that one of his White House contacts told him that there were 50 attacks planned for September 11, 2001. There were the 4 attacks that were carried out, and several more that were foiled once the airplanes were grounded nationwide.
If this is true,imagine what it would have ensued if 50 targets had been hit, rather than the 3 that were hit. America still wouldn't be fully recovered from an attack of that scale. The fact is that these men are dangerous, and should be detained!
To: Pushi
I would like to see a non-lawyer on the Supreme Court--which is quite legal. Even if it is quite legal, and I might challenge that statement, I think it opens up a lot of problems. I just don't think a non-lawyer could be a competent voter on a lot of issues that the Supreme Court decides.
Personally, I really rather not roll those lifetime appointment dice on an experiment to find out whether a non-lawyer can deal with the legal ins and outs that are required of a Supreme Court Justice.
To: Destructor
. One of the Disk Jockies known as "Bama" Brown said that one of his White House contacts told him that there were 50 attacks planned for September 11, 2001. There were the 4 attacks that were carried out, and several more that were foiled once the airplanes were grounded nationwide.Can these reports be verified? Although it's already obvious that landing/grounding planes was the only logical, sane response. Ben Sliney, the FAA's national operations manager, did a good job.
To: Destructor
there were 50 attacks planned for September 11, 2001. There were the 4 attacks that were carried out, and several more that were foiled once the airplanes were grounded nationwide.The math does not compute.
So four were carried out, "several (more than two, fewer than many) were foiled...
What happened to the other thirty five or forty?
To: Boonie Rat
"If you suspend habeas corpus for some U.S. citizens," NO ONE'S HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED.
PADILLA AND HAMDI BOTH HAVE HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS BEFORE COURTS RIGHT NOW.
IF THE COURT DECIDES THEIR DETENTION IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE 9/11 CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR MILITARY FORCE THEY WILL BE RELEASED.
14
posted on
09/11/2002 6:13:04 AM PDT
by
mrsmith
To: ChuckHam
Also, in my opinion I don't believe congress has to declare war for the president to respond to an attack on our country.What? Does your version of the Constitution not have an Article I Section 8 in it? Huh, must be one of those 'living breathing' ones that liberals always speak of. Fact is, it's there in black and white. Just because you choose to disagree with it doesn't mean it's not there
To: mrsmith
Perhaps, you can enlighten those of us who live in this country, just how long it will take for the court to make this decision . . . one day, one week, one month, one year, one century or even longer.
If it is anything past a month, in my opinion, the Constitution has been destroyed.
16
posted on
09/11/2002 6:19:32 AM PDT
by
rollin
To: sheltonmac
Thanks for the ping, that 'based on distrust' line was the best, and I've never heard it before.
There is hope.
Regards,
17
posted on
09/11/2002 6:20:24 AM PDT
by
Triple
To: mrsmith
PADILLA AND HAMDI BOTH HAVE HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS BEFORE COURTS RIGHT NOW.However, the Bush Administration has claimed that the Judiciary has no right of review for those declared enemy combatants. So the Bush Admin believes that habeas corpus SHOULD be suspended for those people. The courts may decide otherwise, but the intent of the Bush Administration is rather clear...
18
posted on
09/11/2002 6:22:33 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
To: rollin
I agree it's taking too long.
In the Hamdi case it's because the judge is incompetent IMHO.
In the Padilla case it's mostly the administration's fault for moving him at the last minute.
19
posted on
09/11/2002 6:22:41 AM PDT
by
mrsmith
To: ChuckHam
Also, in my opinion I don't believe congress has to declare war for the president to respond to an attack on our country.Just like FDR did after Pearl Harbor. Oops, sorry, he went to Congress to ask for a declaration of war, and used his speech there as a means to build overwhelming support for the war. Funny how following the rules of the Constitution works best...
20
posted on
09/11/2002 6:24:53 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-87 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson