Subject:
|
Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2007 03:25:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2847 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/18/15219/0788
>
> k, it's a lefty sight, but it has this excerpt from the Gonzales affair--
>
> Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take
> it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have
> the right of habeas corpus?
>
> Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every
> individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of
> habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas
> corpus shall not be suspended.
>
>
> Hmmmm, founding fathers being exclusionary? The literal text really does say
> what Gonzales says it does.
>
> But then again, the literal text of the 2nd really does say that the guns are
> for the 'well oiled militia'
>
> Interpretations be damned, I say. Let's go for the literal text!!!
Gonzo suffers from the delusion that the Prez is his client, when in fact he
should be serving the interests of the citizenry. Instead of a champion of law,
the Attorney General is acting as the primary enabler of and passionate advocate
for whatever disastrous policies Cheney et al can come up with.
The AG mentioned his view that "activist judges" aren't qualified to rule on
matters of national security and therefore should be ignored at the President
whim. Well, he might be half right, but that's it: judges *may* not be
qualified to rule on national security issues, but they certainly *are*
qualified to rule on the propriety of law and its application (or subversion).
So when Dubya decides, for example, in his fascist mania to imprison a US
citizen permanently without charge or trial, it is indeed up to the judiciary to
rein him in, regardless of how urgently Dubya insists that he's above all
considerations of law.
So let's see: Bush claims authority to issue "signing statements" whereby, in
effect, he creates new and binding legislation all by himself, and he also
declares (through his puppet Gonzales) that no judge has the power to rule
against him. Someone tell me again when we stopped being a nominal democracy?
I can think of at least one stalwart defender of the Bush administration who
might post a reply condoning Bush's tactics, but it's worth nothing that Dubya's
supporters account for around 28% of the population at the moment. Clearly
*somebody* must have decided that Bush is going about things the wrong way...
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) I wouldn't call incarcerating enemy combatants a disastrous policy. (...) I'd feel more comfortable discussing a specific example rather than addressing spurious, blanket attacks. (...) Every branch works the system to their advantage. It has (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (URL) it's a lefty sight, but it has this excerpt from the Gonzales affair-- Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of (...) (17 years ago, 23-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
115 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
