 |
| |
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
dont vote kerry, vote badnarik.
www.lp.org , click on badnarik, top left. |
I meant to respond to this and got side tracked. Badnarik (and LP candidates in general) will easily most closely match more of my views on more issues than any of the other candidates but Minnesotans vote for LP in such low numbers that for presidential races I tend to select my candidate based on which of the two major party candidates I want to have the stronger mandate. In every presidential election since I was old enough to make my own informed political opinions this has been the republican candidate. This time the last thing I want my vote doing is contributing to a Bush mandate and I fear any LP vote will simply be lumped into a bush mandate in the same manner that a vote for Nader would have been lumped into a gore mandate had Gore won. I only vote like this in fvcked up election systems like the electoral college.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
If you oppose indefinite detention, why do you support the Patriot Act? An provision of it allows the indefinite detention of aliens on the attorney general's whim. |
Because not only do I believe that holding aliens indefinately is constitutional but I also cannot conceive how it would possibly reduce our ability to oppose an out of control government through legal means. Rounding up every last alien in the country would not silence the dissent of the our citizens.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Damn. I was hoping the answer would be that an act of Congress should require clearing the hurdles of all three branches. |
It seems to me that the problem is that only the executive branch of government has any real power. The moment the executive chooses to ignore legislation or the consititution there is no way to reign it in unless the legislature is sufficiently opposed or non partisan to complete impeachment proceedings to remove the president from office. I was actually glad when Clinton was impeached not because I cared much that Clinton purjored to cover his betrayel of his family and not even because I felt that his policies were often damaging to the country but because I felt that it was important to keep the impeachment process alive and well as a kind of sword of damocles to dangle over the necks of otherwise totally unaccountable presidents.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
geronimo...youve hit it. once the legislature is in the pocket of the executive there is nothing that can be done.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
When you are the Committee Chair, you have a mandate of the majority in what comes up for vote. That's a major part of the Committee Chair, which is a necessary part of a committee. The filibuster isn't necessary to anything. |
No, they're both aspects of parliamentary rule that allows a minority to prevent a bill from coming to vote. When Clinton was in power, Hatch allowed any single Senator of the same home state as the nominee to block him/her. I don't see why that's sacred (especially given that Hatch reversed this rule now that Shrub's in power), and filibustering wrong. That's nonsense.
quote:
Because not only do I believe that holding aliens indefinately is constitutional |
Why? And even if it were constitutional, don't you think that it's wrong? If you were vacationing in another country, would it be ok if their government held you in prison indefinitely without due process?
quote:
but I also cannot conceive how it would possibly reduce our ability to oppose an out of control government through legal means. Rounding up every last alien in the country would not silence the dissent of the our citizens. |
Rounding up some citizens wouldn't silence the dissent of the rest. Would it be ok to have some sort of quota, like only a few million citizens could be rounded up without due process at a given time?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
imran, sometimes the minority is right in upholding the process if the minority is 48%
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
quote:
Because not only do I believe that holding aliens indefinately is constitutional |
Why? And even if it were constitutional, don't you think that it's wrong? If you were vacationing in another country, would it be ok if their government held you in prison indefinitely without due process?
|
You hit the nail on the head. It is precisely because so many foreign governments allow for holding of americans (and indeed anybody) indefinately without due process that I balk at extending our constitution to cover everybody in the world. However, I think it would be appropriate to enact legislation such that we extend equivalent protection to countries recognized to respect these principles. Even in the absence of such legislation I would want the executive to restrain itself when dealing with the citizens of such countries. So while I don't regard indefinate detention of brits or mexicans for example as unconstitutional I still find such detentions inexcusable and hold them against Bush as an example of poor foreign policy.
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
quote:
but I also cannot conceive how it would possibly reduce our ability to oppose an out of control government through legal means. Rounding up every last alien in the country would not silence the dissent of the our citizens. |
Rounding up some citizens wouldn't silence the dissent of the rest. Would it be ok to have some sort of quota, like only a few million citizens could be rounded up without due process at a given time? |
The reason I value our constitution even above our democracy is because it offers protection to the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of a mob is every bit as real as tyranny of an individual or an oligarchy. If I were to accept a quota on citizen detentions that lack due process it would mean accepting total nullification of this protection of minorities. Would a quota have prevented Lincolns detentions or FDR's detentions? Almost certainly not the former and probably not the latter. No. I regard it as essential that all citizens be free from any possibility of an imprisonment in which they have no legal recourse to challenge their confinement.
Last edited by Geronimo on 17-08-2004 at 10:58
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
You do know that there is no such thing as a filibuster in the House, don't you? And there doesn't seem to be any pandemonium there. |
I didn't say the lack of filibusters caused pandemonium.
quote:
And besides, a majority ALWAYS has a greater mandate than a minority, and therefore a 'blue-slip' is more tasteful than a filibuster. |
41 Senators always have a greater mandate than one Senator.
I don't see what you don't understand. One Senator is using a stupid rule - like the filibuster, but worse - that the Judiciary Chair created. Obviously, that isn't at all tasteful.
_____
quote:
You hit the nail on the head. It is precisely because so many foreign governments allow for holding of americans (and indeed anybody) indefinately without due process that I balk at extending our constitution to cover everybody in the world. However, I think it would be appropriate to enact legislation such that we extend equivalent protection to countries recognized to respect these principles. |
Don't you think that your ideas are the matter are juvenile? They do bad things to our citizens, so it's ok to do bad stuff to their citizens? How can you possibly consider that to be ethical?
Further, how can you expect them to treat our citizens justly if you accept that premise. By that reasoning, it's ok for the Brits to go about rounding up Americans without due process since we don't respect their liberties.
quote:
The reason I value our constitution even above our democracy is because it offers protection to the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of a mob is every bit as real as tyranny of an individual or an oligarchy. If I were to accept a quota on citizen detentions that lack due process it would mean accepting total nullification of this protection of minorities. |
So why is ok to deny noncitizens protection from the "tyranny of the majority," but wrong to deny citizens protection from the "tyranny of the majority?"
Last edited by Ramo on 17-08-2004 at 14:13
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
quote:
The reason I value our constitution even above our democracy is because it offers protection to the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of a mob is every bit as real as tyranny of an individual or an oligarchy. If I were to accept a quota on citizen detentions that lack due process it would mean accepting total nullification of this protection of minorities. |
So why is ok to deny noncitizens protection from the "tyranny of the majority," but wrong to deny citizens protection from the "tyranny of the majority?" |
For pretty much the same reason that people can oppose the invasion of Iraq even though deposing the extremely unpopular dictatorship and planning to set up a democratic government in it's place would be consistent with the principles enshrined within our constitution. It would be great for the whole world to be a democracy enjoying the protection of our constitution but it is not practical and enormous numbers of people would even scream it would be unethical to even try to make it that way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"Actually, Kerry has taken a stand against indefinite detention of at least citizens (maybe noncitizens, but I don't recall him saying that). "
Fair enough. But were he to release Padilla he'd face political charges that he was weak on terror and that he cared more about protecting Moslem's constitutional rights then the safety of the American people. Not that that'd be justified, but it makes it questionable if Kerry actually would.
|
Why release Padilla unless the government has no real evidence against him? In that case, it's not Kerry being weak on terror, it's Bush holding a man outside the reach of the judicial system without real evidence. If Padilla is provably guilty, then strap him to the same gurney as McVeigh and be done with it.
quote:
" As for partial birth abortion on demand or racial quotas, I've seen no reason to believe that Kerry advocates any of that."
Well, you can check his voting record on Affirmative Action or Abortion. Kerry is also likely to appoint justices who are of his same general ideology, who are likely to hold those views. The Supreme Court has already been interfering with partial birth abortion laws and the liberal wing of the supreme court(Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg) in favor of quotas already.
|
Supporters of abortion rights in general, or under limited circumstances, aren't necessarily in favor of partial birth abortions. In fact, most are not in favor of the procedure, but saw through the hypocrisy of having Congress start regulating medical procedures on a procedure-by-procedure basis. If an abortion at that stage is legal (it shouldn't be, IMO, unless there's a significant risk to the woman's life or permanent injury to her), then it should be up to the medical community and medical licensing boards to determine what procedures may be used. If it isn't legal, then the medical procedure question is moot.
Also, most AA programs do not involve or require quotas, whether in public or private sector. Quotas are (with very rare exceptions) either voluntary stupidity, or ordered pursuant to judgments or consent decrees for employers where past patterns of discrimination have been proven.
quote:
The Clinton stuff was before they came out so strongly against ideological screening of nominees. Now it will be harder.
|
This assumes that Kerry will pick leftist ideologues, and that the Senate won't be able to stick the issue to Kerry in that event. Even people who loved FDR drew the line at his court-packing scheme.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
We don't know what the composition of the Senate will be though. And we don't know if enough Republican Senators would have the backbone to fight Kerry's SC nominees. Of Course, it would be hard for the Republican Senate to block left-wing nominees after complaining for 4 years about blocking judges based on ideology.
Even in the scenario that left-wing justices are fought by the Senate GOP, the most likely way I would guess such a standoff would end would be Kerry appointing someone whose views on controversial issues are unknown, but whom Kerry privately knows is a liberal.
|
That never works. Do you think Ike expected Earl Warren to be the CJ he was? Or JFK and Byron White? Or Reagan and Kennedy?
I don't think the composition of the Senate will change much, at least not enough to prevent filibusters, and there are enough absolutely safe Republican senate seats around to maintain filibuster capability.
quote:
Regarding Padilla, yes it's clearly wrong. But it's also nothing new. Lincoln detained Southern Sympathizers in the Civil War. FDR detained Japanese Americans in WWII. We've survived it before, and it doesn't mean such unlawful detentions will soon become broadly applies to everyone who opposes Bush. |
It's very new, and the Lincoln/FDR comparisons don't wash. Both Lincoln and FDR acted against a defined enemy, with a defined security threat. In Bush's "war" there is no set enemy and there is no end to the war. It's beyond Orwellian, since we're not at war with states, we're at war with amorphous groups of individuals, and any future individuals who may or may not, in the President's opinion, form some such group or be some alleged potential threat. With that definition of "enemy" the end of the war is simply a matter of personal definition for the President.
If Padilla type detentions were applied en masse, it'd be enough to get people riled up, but by being gradual and getting away with it, Bush is setting up the conditions for a second administration, or successor administrations of a similar mindset, to detain anyone, any time, for any reason the President or whoever he designates sees fit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
That doesn't make any sense, whatsoever. You might want to rethink this. |
Ok I'll try to explain again. You believe that the constitutions applicability should follow geography whereas I believe it should follow citizenship. You claim my stance is grossly unfair. My iraq example above was to demonstrate how your stance is unfair in precisely the same way.
Last edited by Geronimo on 17-08-2004 at 22:49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Of Course, it would be hard for the Republican Senate to block left-wing nominees after complaining for 4 years about blocking judges based on ideology. |
Not so hard. They already spent six years blocking judges based on ideology, before they started complaining about the Dems blocking judges based on ideology.
edit: Sorry to be redundant. Who'da thunk everyone else would jump on this before me?
Last edited by debeest on 18-08-2004 at 00:54
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
 |
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:34
|
|
As far as I'm concerned, the Dems pissed in the well with Borke (undoubtedly the single most capable and ethical jurist the world will ever see) and Thomas.
If they want to complain that the nomination process is tainted they can eat crow and admit they are to blame.
Last edited by Straybow on 18-08-2004 at 04:51
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
You're conflating multiple issues. If you're asking whether the specific liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are protected outside of the US, then the answer is obviously no. That's a matter of fact. Likewise, if you're asking whether these liberties are being protected for noncitizens in the US, again that's a matter of fact.
What I was asking is why shouldn't aliens have a set of specific guarantees enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the right to due process. That's a moral, not a factual question.
BTW, I believe that everyone, living in this country or not, should have the right to due process. So I don't where you're getting the geography nonsense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
You're conflating multiple issues. If you're asking whether the specific liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are protected outside of the US, then the answer is obviously no. That's a matter of fact. Likewise, if you're asking whether these liberties are being protected for noncitizens in the US, again that's a matter of fact.
What I was asking is why shouldn't aliens have a set of specific guarantees enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the right to due process. That's a moral, not a factual question.
BTW, I believe that everyone, living in this country or not, should have the right to due process. So I don't where you're getting the geography nonsense. |
I can respect a desire to have due process applied to everybody in the world without regard to the US constitution one way or another. I just don't want the suggestion made that the due process is guarenteed by our constitution to non citizens. I'd rather have a due process described for non citizens in some other way.
Our legal system sets extremely high standards for conviction as well as often resulting in an excessively drawn out and expensive legal process involving disrupting the lives of many ordinary citizens simply because tyranny of government cannot be prevented if citizens do not have the highest possible protection from injust disenfranchisement through imprisonment. This extreme standard is not necessary for aliens because the government could not entrench its power through disenfranchisment of aliens because aliens are already disenfranchised. I think it would be insane to spend the millions of dollars that are spent on criminal trials and put out the hundred of citizens that are put out in a jury trial for each and every alien being detained in gitmo much less apply the assumption that each of them is innocent until proven beyond any shadow of doubt to be guilty. Screw that. I accept such immense cost for citizens only because it is the only way to keep our system of government safe from despotism. If I could be sure that I could trust government not to ever abuse the power to entrench its authority I would prefer presumption of guilt until proven innocent. But I would never trust any government to resist forever the temptation to use such a process to achieve politcal ends. So I reject such a standard for citizens. I don't understand what purpose there would be in rejecting it for aliens though. The only purpose I've come up with is so that we can respect reciprical treatment from other governments for our own citizens.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-08-2004 09:44
)for it to be there. Senate rules are meant to require a supermajority to be overturned. If otherwise, there'd be pandemonium. Do you really want Senate rules to be overturned by a majority?
|