Then they should have told their congressmen to vote no, but you know that's not what I'm referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
|
Then they should have told their congressmen to vote no, but you know that's not what I'm referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
It matters not what the citizens tell their congressmen to do, they will do the bidding of whoever pays them the most.
So what is your excuse for ignoring me? My evidence not convincing enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
I don't think the truth of that is known south of the Canadian borderQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Not ignoring you... and nope your evidence isn't convincing enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Anyone can post anything on the internet... doesn't make it factual.
Google up Alien Abduction sometime... see what I mean. Look at how many people blieve in Bigfoot, the Abominable snowman.. etc.
Hell, just look at the Paranormal forum.......lots of people there in need of medications to stop the things they are seeing and voices in their heads.
And the point goes right over your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
It might. Explain the point for us please.Quote:
And the point goes right over your head.
The vote on both wars was passed with strong bipartisan support, it was never all Bush's fault, he sought congressional approval and got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
How does that prove that I missed the point about the pointlessness of citizens trying to get their congressmen to vote a certain way? That political vote you speak of had nothing to do with what US citizens wanted.
Nothing at all really, again you missed the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
And you're totally missing/avoiding mine.
One day you will realize that your venting is a total waste of time due to your loss of control of the people you elect.
Oh I got your point, it was irrelevant to mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Yet it's more important.
Moving on, it seems some on the left are admitting to reality - and no I'm not talking about Dems calling for a delay in the mandate.
Comments?Quote:
Blame Liberals for Obama’s Illegal Drone War
The advocacy groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are accusing the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama of possible war crimes for drone strike campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen. These charges won’t have much weight within the U.S. -- after all, even Hollywood now portrays the way we tortured detainees, and no one has been held to account.
But the reports presage what will probably become history’s verdict on drone strikes taking place off the battlefield in weak states: bad for human rights, bad for the rule of law -- and bad for U.S. interests in the fight against terrorism.
There will be plenty of blame to go around, yet I can’t escape the gnawing feeling that people like me -- legal critics of the George W. Bush administration’s detention policy -- bear some moral responsibility for creating incentives for the Obama administration to kill rather than capture. True, we didn’t realize that condemning interrogation practices and quasi-lawless detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would lead a Democratic president to break new ground in unfettered presidential authority. But that’s just the point: We should have seen it coming. And we didn’t.
**************
Although the tactical appeal of drone strikes is significant, it doesn’t fully explain the Obama administration’s preference for them. Part of the policy choice resulted from the practical impossibility for the president of doing anything with al-Qaeda-linked terrorists if they should be captured. Having pledged to close the prison at Guantanamo during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama could hardly add detainees there. But why had Obama come out against Guantanamo in the first place?
The answer had everything to do with legally inflected criticisms of detention as practiced by the Bush administration. You remember the tune: There was no clear legal authority to hold detainees. Harsh interrogation tactics violated domestic and international law. Guantanamo itself was a legal black hole, chosen because it wasn’t inside the U.S., but also (according to the U.S.) wasn’t under Cuban sovereignty because of a disputed 100-year-old treaty.
Reasonable Criticisms
When people including myself made these criticisms to reasonable people in the Bush administration -- yes, there were reasonable people there, such as Matthew Waxman, who worked in both the State and Defense departments, and Jack Goldsmith, of the Office of Legal Counsel (and now my colleague at Harvard Law School) -- we got a pretty consistent answer. Look, they said, detention is problematic, but it is better than just killing people!
These Bush administration moderates pointed out that in choosing military targets, mistakes were sometimes made -- collateral damage was even accepted under international law. Detention, too, might involve errors, but it was necessary as an alternative to shooting first and asking questions later.
For what it is worth, I would strongly with the OP.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I am not talking about alien abduction and the like. I am talking about stuff like this that you post:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
"As far as the Bill of Rights is concerned...Natural rights and legal rights are one and the same. They trump any legal statute( meaning you can't write a law that does away with enumerated rights)..we are discussing the Bill of Rights not the legal code of the country."
My reply was that if they are in fact one and the same you must also be discussing the legal code of the country as well. This is because you are telling us that, "All x's are x's. After telling us this you then revert to a claim that there is actually a distinction.This is obviously a contradiction.
This logic not convincing enough? Perhaps you can tell my why.
This is the type of stuff I am talking about.
Its simple.. our Constitution isn't written in pencil like so many others are... including your own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
The President can't change it... Congress can't even change it on their own... it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
If a very LARGE percentage of thje population decides it's a right... then it can be made one if it isn't already... and that has to be at least 3/4 of the population.
Constitutional Amendment Process
Laws can be repealed just as easily as they can be made... mental midgets such as Obama can't simply make a proclimation that is so... and make it so..
Obama care for example isn't a "right"....it doesn't have majority support...it was rammed through without a proper vote...and it will never get the 75% required to make it a legal RIGHT......and since it won't it can be very easily repealed.
Hello smoothy, Mr. Constitutionalist:
Tell me, kind Sir, what are my rights under the 9th Amendment?
excon
LOL, Smoothy you make a big argument about what the emperor can or cannot do, but he has done it and you have not repealed or overturned any thing not even through the court. So whom should we believe? YOU? Or him?
Additionally, many can interpret the constitution in many ways but SCOTUS is the final arbiter, not the TParty, or the rest of the loony's who have never read the damn thing, or understand what they read.
9th Amendment legal definition of 9th Amendment. 9th Amendment synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
9th Amendment
I know you can read as well as use Google...
If you like the readers digest version.
The Constitution Explained - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:19 AM. |