Dan wrote: > It may not be a good interpretation of the original intent of the > founders, but I think it is consistent with decisions of the Supreme > Court over the > last 140 or so years. I don't think either one of us is a strict > constructionist overall. Now, I'll agree that this interpretation of the > Constitution is a bit sketchy...I'd like to see a different balance > between Congress and the President on war powers, but I was not arguing > whether Bush having this power is a good thing. Rather, my original > point is that it is based on decisions of the Supreme Court that were > based on the general > acceptance of Lincoln's actions as Constitutional.
When has an American Citizen been held as an enemy combatant and completely isolated? When has torture been condoned? When has the kind of massive, indiscriminant wiretapping program the administration has carried out ever happened? What the administration has done is _beyond_ what has happened in the past and the situation is far less dire than it was when similar excesses occurred. > Lower courts are, and should be, very hesitant in changing the > interpretation of the Constitution from what has been set. Even if the > judge doesn't think the actions of Bush are reasonable, (s)he might rule > that they are constitutional, based on past cases. The Supreme Court is > also somewhat hesitant to make massive changes in the established case > law by overturning decisions of earlier Supreme Courts. Please tell me what would have been overturned. > > If you look at the Supreme Court's actions, they are clearly hesitant to > define the law here....hoping that Congress would be the branch of > government that would balance out the President. Do you mean the previous, rubber stamp congress? > The history of the Supreme Court going toe to toe with the President is > rather mixed, so I generally > favor this type of restraint. In particular, the actions of the Supreme > Court in the '30s, declaring much of the > New Deal as > unconstitutional, and the danger that an activist Rehnquist court would > remove the foundation of Federal power in it's opinion on the original > intent of the commerce clause. (This didn't happen, but I recall > > reading in the NY Times of what might happen if the court followed it's > logic one more step). I favor an activist court when the constitution is being ripped to shreds and the congress is a collection of yes men for the administration. You know we all hate slippery slope arguments, but doesn't it feel just a little like were sliding helplessly away from what this country really stands for? How do we get back to the right place if we keep letting these so called precedents stand without challenge? > > One thing I do, when it comes to the powers of the branches of > government, I try to set forth my beliefs independent of whether my side > is supported by the President, Congress, or the Courts. The same Court > that can find a > right to abortion in the Constitution can also decide that labor laws > violate the right to freely make contracts provided for by the 14th > amendment. There are times for activism and there are times for restraint. When the constitution is being trashed, it's the wrong time to sit on your hands. > I think I know what your position on the risk of terrorist attacks now, > but I want to make sure that I do know. I don't think you'd say that we > are > safer now than we were before 9-11, but I think you do not see the risk > as very significant in the big picture. Indeed, it appears that you > think > there is a much greater risk of Bush and company (or maybe Cheney and > company) staging some sort of coup (I'll address this in another post). > I remember Bob Kerry's assessment of the risk before 9-11. He was part > of a committee (googling doesn't find it so far...the 9-11 commission > overwhelms it in the search) that assessed risks as substantial. > Included in their > analysis is the real risk of attacks that are far more substantial than > 9-11 turned out. There are undoubtedly risks, but to change our way of life because of those risks is a signal victory for our enemies. This is where the famous Franklin quote is so apropos (Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety) and where our attitude has been changed from "The only thing to fear is fear itself" to the only thing to fear is ourselves. This is what people like Charlie see from the outside. We're self destructing because a bunch of creeps managed to blow up a couple of buildings. Once. Six years ago. Sure there's still a threat, but we're handling it all wrong. The first thing you do is show the jerk offs that what they have done _won't_ change our lives because while we might not be the very best at everything, we were pretty damned good, we were an idea that the world emulated, admired and envied. Now we're a laughing stock. The second thing was Afghanistan, but that should have been coupled with some kind of action against those that were behind 911. The Saudis. And the third thing would have been to make the middle east as irrelevant as possible. If we can come up with a trillion dollars to fight a wildly unsuccessful war in Iraq, imagine how far we could have gone towards energy independence? I know you're going to give me a rationalization about how we could never do it for this or that technical reason, but I think you're full of it. Hell, if we'd of stayed on track with Carter's energy plan, the whole episode probably wouldn’t have happened. > > The price of staging bioterrorism is going down...more or less according > to Moore's law from what I see. > > So, I don't think the risk of substantial future attacks is minimal. > Even > if one discounts Bush's statements as virtually meaningless, there is a > substantial body of work, from Huntington to Kerry, that indicate that > there > is a real risk. > > > >> By the way, Padilla was arrested in Chicago > > Technically, he was not, even though he was at ORD. He was arrested > outside> of the US because he had not cleared customs. I'm pretty sure > that there is precedent for this. Please cite. > Well, he's on trial now, and if he is convicted, I don't see the problem > with him being in prison. You don't see a problem with his rights being suspended? If they could have convicted him of something four years ago, why the hell didn't they do it? > There is a very simple explanation for this. They had indications that > he did have some contact with AQ, and that he was rather violently > inclined. I think that depending on reports of incompetence for the > security of the US. I've also read that he was a gang-banger with a > solid history of > violence....someone he kicked in the head died. He had connections to > AQ, and was returning from travels (he had traveled to Egypt, Saudi > Arabia, > Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq) when he was arrested. > I don't think that arresting him is inherently problematic. Of course not. If he did something wrong, throw the book at him. Personally though, I don't think the guy had the wherewithal to load a cigar. Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
