Talk Elections

General Politics => U.S. General Discussion => Topic started by: J. J. on June 26, 2008, 09:17:58 AM



Title: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: J. J. on June 26, 2008, 09:17:58 AM
SCOTUM just confirmed that individuals have a right to bear arms.  :)


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: ChrisFromNJ on June 26, 2008, 09:19:10 AM
Kennedy votes with the conservatives today. :(

He is indeed the most powerful person in America right now.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on June 26, 2008, 09:26:25 AM
Excellent ruling!!!  Note to gun opponents:  Guns do not kill people, people do.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: MODU on June 26, 2008, 09:26:36 AM
I guess I can look forward to the local news being dominated on this topic tonight.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on June 26, 2008, 09:33:25 AM
Excellent ruling!!!  Note to gun opponents:  Guns do not kill people, people do.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on June 26, 2008, 09:35:54 AM
We all knew this was going nowhere.

Can you imagine the s**tstorm this would have caused if they'd gone against the 2nd?


....even if I think it is the right thing to do (ok people we all know where I stand - and I know where y'all stand on this - no need to start it up).


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Albus Dumbledore on June 26, 2008, 09:41:24 AM
Good. Now if we can rollback state gun control laws too...


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Iosif is a COTHO on June 26, 2008, 09:47:34 AM
Judicial Activism!!


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: John Dibble on June 26, 2008, 09:51:32 AM
Good news!


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: CPT MikeyMike on June 26, 2008, 09:52:13 AM
Good. Now if we can rollback state gun control laws too...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Kennedy votes with the conservatives today.

He is indeed the most powerful person biggest flip-flopper in America right now.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: minionofmidas on June 26, 2008, 10:01:35 AM
Just noticed that.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Flying Dog on June 26, 2008, 10:27:02 AM
Excellent ruling!!!  Note to gun opponents:  Guns do not kill people, people do.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: J. J. on June 26, 2008, 11:49:44 AM
Excellent ruling!!!  Note to gun opponents:  Guns do not kill people, people do.

Scalia not only wrote the correct opinion, but a history of gun rights in the United States and England prior to the American Revolution.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: SPC on June 26, 2008, 11:52:28 AM
Funny how Scalia can be so constitutionally wrong one week (Gitmo) and be constitutionally right the next (gun rights).


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Flying Dog on June 26, 2008, 12:02:08 PM
Funny how Scalia can be so constitutionally wrong one week (Gitmo) and be constitutionally right the next (gun rights).

I loved Scalia's dissent from the Gitmo ruling. Sounds like it came right from the White House.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: KEmperor on June 26, 2008, 12:02:36 PM
Very good news.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: opebo on June 26, 2008, 12:36:08 PM
Funny how Scalia can be so constitutionally wrong one week (Gitmo) and be constitutionally right the next (gun rights).

Scalia votes politically, with no thought of the constitution other than as a sort of cover story.

And of course guns do kill people, since most murders are of a passionate nature and largely thwarted by practical difficulties like like of effective tools.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Person Man on June 26, 2008, 01:33:39 PM
Funny how Scalia can be so constitutionally wrong one week (Gitmo) and be constitutionally right the next (gun rights).
Correct. The point is that he is a Republican Justice, not an Originalist Justice. He taught himself today the value of the constitution being read in a reasonable fashion. Then again, he read between the lines in Bush v. Gore and of course, Scalia has his own Substantive Due Process test that allows for constitutional protection of all things that America has a "traditional" history of protection.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: A18 on June 26, 2008, 01:52:27 PM
Note to gun opponents:  Guns do not kill people, people do.

I'm a strong supporter of gun rights. But that line is perhaps the most ridiculous political slogan in political discourse today; please never utter it again.

As to the actual subject matter: On the threshold question of whether the Second Amendment protects any meaningful private right, this decision was so obviously sound, that it's frankly somewhat disheartening that four justices could dissent on that point.

Quote
Funny how Scalia can be so constitutionally wrong one week (Gitmo) and be constitutionally right the next (gun rights).

Curious. Did you read his opinion in each case; judiciously examine the historical materials; contrast his reasoning with various competing arguments; and then arrive at this conclusion? Or did you simply pick the result that strikes you as more intuitively just, and assume it must be correct? (There is admittedly middle ground, but few seem to occupy it.)


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Flying Dog on June 26, 2008, 02:01:08 PM
Scalia basically argued that we'd suffer another terrorist attack because of that ruling


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on June 26, 2008, 02:24:46 PM
Its a great day to be an American, indeed.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: dead0man on June 26, 2008, 02:30:09 PM
I'm just happy the left's only argument here is "Scalia sucks!".  I like when the bad guys know they've lost.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 26, 2008, 02:33:49 PM
I'm just happy the left's only argument here is "Scalia sucks!".  I like when the bad guys know they've lost.

Well, he does suck.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on June 26, 2008, 02:34:51 PM
I'm just happy the left's only argument here is "Scalia sucks!".  I like when the bad guys know they've lost.

Well, he does suck.

Not always.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Sensei on June 26, 2008, 02:51:29 PM
the Court made the right choice.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: War on Want on June 26, 2008, 02:52:16 PM
Yay!!!


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 26, 2008, 03:11:03 PM
I'm just happy the left's only argument here is "Scalia sucks!".  I like when the bad guys know they've lost.

Well, he does suck.

Not always.

Almost always.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on June 26, 2008, 03:17:35 PM

60-40


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 26, 2008, 03:21:39 PM

95-5


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Emsworth on June 26, 2008, 03:25:46 PM
The Supreme Court's decision in Heller is quite clearly correct. The opinion was generally very good, except for the parts that identified restrictions on handgun use and ownership that would be constitutional. These hypothetical restrictions were not before the Court in this case, and the Justices should not have commented on them.

The dissents, on the other hand, were almost painful to read. Particularly egregious is Justice Stevens' admonition: "[the decision] will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries." Pot calling the kettle black?


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on June 26, 2008, 04:29:21 PM
The Supreme Court's decision in Heller is quite clearly correct. The opinion was generally very good, except for the parts that identified restrictions on handgun use and ownership that would be constitutional. These hypothetical restrictions were not before the Court in this case, and the Justices should not have commented on them.

The dissents, on the other hand, were almost painful to read. Particularly egregious is Justice Stevens' admonition: "[the decision] will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries." Pot calling the kettle black?

Excellent analysis.

I really find it hillarious that the gun grabbers are going to try to argue that the second amendment "right of the people" should not apply to the state and local governments while the first amendment "Congress shall make no law" does!

Justice Black had it right several decades ago!


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on June 26, 2008, 06:47:08 PM
I'm happy with the ruling, but I disagree with it.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Flying Dog on June 26, 2008, 06:47:59 PM

Mind expanding on that?


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: AkSaber on June 26, 2008, 06:58:28 PM
Yay! About time the D.C. ban was given the heave-hoe.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Sensei on June 26, 2008, 07:22:26 PM
The Supreme Court's decision in Heller is quite clearly correct. The opinion was generally very good, except for the parts that identified restrictions on handgun use and ownership that would be constitutional. These hypothetical restrictions were not before the Court in this case, and the Justices should not have commented on them.

The dissents, on the other hand, were almost painful to read. Particularly egregious is Justice Stevens' admonition: "[the decision] will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries." Pot calling the kettle black?

Excellent analysis.

I really find it hillarious that the gun grabbers are going to try to argue that the second amendment "right of the people" should not apply to the state and local governments while the first amendment "Congress shall make no law" does!

Justice Black had it right several decades ago!
Stevens complaining about an activist judiciary? lol


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Person Man on June 26, 2008, 07:46:46 PM
It's hypocracy at it's finest, but Stevens is right. Though this ruling was a good ruling and one that I agree with, this ruling will help mature the developing tradition of rightist judicial activism. This would not be the only time in American history where rightist judges dictated our national policy. However, this tradition of activism is now running paralell with liberal judicial activism and could create an environment where the Supreme Court is relied on as a super legislature in a bigger way than even before. Perhaps as the tradition of a strong judiciary runs concurrent with trends in biological technology, we could see a super legislature in which any one member can control this country in a time measured in many decades, instead of many years. Perhaps this will give rise to the time where there is a strong enough support for a Constitutional Amendment to create a "control" branch to the judiciary, made up of law clerks that are voted on by the American Bar Association or an "examination" branch at the various levels of government to prevent unconstitutional laws. Perhaps there could even be an amendment to force federal judges to be voted on. Then again, in the Stoic philosophy that helped found this country, there should always be a nobility to check the will of the people so that only the best change can come forward.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: J. J. on June 26, 2008, 08:05:03 PM
It's hypocracy at it's finest, but Stevens is right. Though this ruling was a good ruling and one that I agree with, this ruling will help mature the developing tradition of rightist judicial activism. This would not be the only time in American history where rightist judges dictated our national policy.

You would basically have to say that there was a 300 year tradition of "rightest judges," and rightest constitutional assemblies, and legislatures.

Stevens, in trying to equate 18th Century regulations, especially the Philadelphia Ordinance, drew a false analogy.  It dealt with the use of a firearm verses the possession of a firearm.

It's a bit like saying that since you can be prohibited from driving a motorcycle through the Senate Chamber, you don't have a right to own a motorcycle.

I thought Stevens did a very poor job on trying to use the history of gun laws to justify his position.



Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: WalterMitty on June 26, 2008, 08:10:34 PM
i renew my call for a consitutional amendment to ban handguns.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Flying Dog on June 26, 2008, 08:26:01 PM
i renew my call for a consitutional amendment to ban handguns.

I renew my call for a repeal of the 21st amendment in order to reinstate the 18th.

Hurts...doesn't it?


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on June 26, 2008, 09:05:36 PM

I disagree with their definition of milita.  I interpret it as a literal militia, but I've always advocated another amendment that would clearly give citizens the right to own guns - now that won't be needed though - thus my happy attitude toward a ruling that I disagree with.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Flying Dog on June 26, 2008, 09:08:27 PM

I disagree with their definition of milita.  I interpret it as a literal militia, but I've always advocated another amendment that would clearly give citizens the right to own guns - now that won't be needed though - thus my happy attitude toward a ruling that I disagree with.


OIC


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: WalterMitty on June 26, 2008, 09:43:10 PM
i renew my call for a consitutional amendment to ban handguns.

I renew my call for a repeal of the 21st amendment in order to reinstate the 18th.

Hurts...doesn't it?

lolz.

BCUZ WALTERMITTY IZ A BIGGGGGGGGGGG DRUNK!!!1111


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on June 26, 2008, 10:56:09 PM
i renew my call for a consitutional amendment to ban handguns.

And I renew my call for a constitutional amendment to protect strip clubs. Which has just as much chance of passing.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Flying Dog on June 26, 2008, 10:58:27 PM
i renew my call for a consitutional amendment to ban handguns.

I renew my call for a repeal of the 21st amendment in order to reinstate the 18th.

Hurts...doesn't it?

lolz.

BCUZ WALTERMITTY IZ A BIGGGGGGGGGGG DRUNK!!!1111

Lol because Flem can't handle a hand gun without killing somebody!!!


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Iosif is a COTHO on June 27, 2008, 06:48:32 AM
meh. Americans are gun nuts. Nothing's going to change that. I've given up arguing over this.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Sam Spade on June 27, 2008, 07:00:01 AM
If I were a real Democrat (you know, instead of a registered one), I would be quite happy with this ruling.  Why?  Because the effect on the Prez election (not to mention downballot races) should the Court have ruled otherwise would have been quite major.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: minionofmidas on June 27, 2008, 07:30:18 AM
If I were a real Democrat (you know, instead of a registered one), I would be quite happy with this ruling.  Why?  Because the effect on the Prez election (not to mention downballot races) should the Court have ruled otherwise would have been quite major.
Probably true...


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: minionofmidas on June 27, 2008, 07:31:17 AM
Funny how Scalia can be so constitutionally wrong one week (Gitmo) and be constitutionally right the next (gun rights).
Correct. The point is that he is a Republican Justice, not an Originalist Justice. He taught himself today the value of the constitution being read in a reasonable fashion. Then again, he read between the lines in Bush v. Gore and of course, Scalia has his own Substantive Due Process test that allows for constitutional protection of all things that America has a "traditional" history of protection.
...and half of this decision was based on that alone.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Emsworth on June 27, 2008, 08:56:54 AM
I disagree with their definition of milita. I interpret it as a literal militia...
What's there to disagree with? The Supreme Court interpreted the word "militia" to mean a "literal" militia as well. The point of the ruling is that although the prefaratory clause of the Second Amendment refers to "militia," the operative clause refers to "people," which is supposed to be a broader term; thus, the right to bear arms belongs to all the people, and not just to members of a select militia.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: SPC on June 27, 2008, 11:19:25 AM
Quote
Funny how Scalia can be so constitutionally wrong one week (Gitmo) and be constitutionally right the next (gun rights).

Curious. Did you read his opinion in each case; judiciously examine the historical materials; contrast his reasoning with various competing arguments; and then arrive at this conclusion? Or did you simply pick the result that strikes you as more intuitively just, and assume it must be correct? (There is admittedly middle ground, but few seem to occupy it.)

It doesn't take a rocker scientist to read the Constitution. Anyone with good eyes/reading glasses and a good sense of logic can see that the President cannot suspend habeas corpus on anyone, since that power is only given to Congress during emergency situations. It never says anywhere that it doesn't apply to foreigners. In addition, anyone can read that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, though one could argue that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government, keep in mind that DC is technically part of the federal government. What is the point of having a social contract if only one side of the contract can interpret it?


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Person Man on June 27, 2008, 11:38:23 AM
It's hypocracy at it's finest, but Stevens is right. Though this ruling was a good ruling and one that I agree with, this ruling will help mature the developing tradition of rightist judicial activism. This would not be the only time in American history where rightist judges dictated our national policy.

You would basically have to say that there was a 300 year tradition of "rightest judges," and rightest constitutional assemblies, and legislatures.

Stevens, in trying to equate 18th Century regulations, especially the Philadelphia Ordinance, drew a false analogy.  It dealt with the use of a firearm verses the possession of a firearm.

It's a bit like saying that since you can be prohibited from driving a motorcycle through the Senate Chamber, you don't have a right to own a motorcycle.

I thought Stevens did a very poor job on trying to use the history of gun laws to justify his position.



Although, I am also talking about the XIVA Right to Contract, which was a major part of activism in the 20th century.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Emsworth on June 27, 2008, 11:40:18 AM
Anyone with good eyes/reading glasses and a good sense of logic can see that the President cannot suspend habeas corpus on anyone, since that power is only given to Congress during emergency situations.
I agree that only Congress may suspend the writ of habeas corpus, but the point is not nearly as obvious as you claim. The Constitution merely states that the writ may be suspended during certain emergencies; it does not say who shall suspend it.

Quote
It never says anywhere that it doesn't apply to foreigners.
So? The question presented in Boumediene was whether the writ of habeas corpus applies to aliens who are being held outside the sovereign territory of the United States.

Although, I am also talking about the XIVA Right to Contract, which was a major part of activism in the 20th century.
The liberty of contract doctrine, while clearly indefensible as a matter of constitutional interpretation, is no more unreasonable than the modern doctrines on abortion and "privacy."


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Person Man on June 27, 2008, 11:45:16 AM
Anyone with good eyes/reading glasses and a good sense of logic can see that the President cannot suspend habeas corpus on anyone, since that power is only given to Congress during emergency situations.
I agree that only Congress may suspend the writ of habeas corpus, but the point is not nearly as obvious as you claim. The Constitution merely states that the writ may be suspended during certain emergencies; it does not say who shall suspend it.

Quote
It never says anywhere that it doesn't apply to foreigners.
So? The question presented in Boumediene was whether the writ of habeas corpus applies to aliens who are being held outside the sovereign territory of the United States.

Although, I am also talking about the XIVA Right to Contract, which was a major part of activism in the 20th century.
The liberty of contract doctrine, while clearly indefensible as a matter of constitutional interpretation, is no more unreasonable than the modern doctrines on abortion and "privacy."

I am not saying how defensible it is, and just saying that the constitution is open to anyone with an imagination.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: SPC on June 27, 2008, 03:33:41 PM
Anyone with good eyes/reading glasses and a good sense of logic can see that the President cannot suspend habeas corpus on anyone, since that power is only given to Congress during emergency situations.
I agree that only Congress may suspend the writ of habeas corpus, but the point is not nearly as obvious as you claim. The Constitution merely states that the writ may be suspended during certain emergencies; it does not say who shall suspend it.

Yes, but they said that the writ may be suspended during emergencies, such as when the courts are not working, in the part of the Constitution referring to Congress's powers, Article I. If the founders had intended that power to be delegated to another branch, they would have put it in Article II or Article III.

Quote
Quote
It never says anywhere that it doesn't apply to foreigners.
So? The question presented in Boumediene was whether the writ of habeas corpus applies to aliens who are being held outside the sovereign territory of the United States.

And where does the Constitution grant the executive branch the power to hold military tribunals on foreign soil so as to avoid being subject to U.S. law?


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Emsworth on June 27, 2008, 03:52:17 PM
And where does the Constitution grant the executive branch the power to hold military tribunals on foreign soil so as to avoid being subject to U.S. law?
Just because the military tribunals are unconstitutional, it does not follow that the writ of habeas corpus is the correct remedy.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: SPC on June 28, 2008, 12:21:07 AM
And where does the Constitution grant the executive branch the power to hold military tribunals on foreign soil so as to avoid being subject to U.S. law?
Just because the military tribunals are unconstitutional, it does not follow that the writ of habeas corpus is the correct remedy.

But the president has no power to suspend it and the congress only has the power when the sh**t has hit the fan.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Emsworth on June 28, 2008, 09:24:25 AM
But the president has no power to suspend it and the congress only has the power when the sh**t has hit the fan.
There is no need to suspend the writ if the writ wasn't even applicable in the first place.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: SPC on June 28, 2008, 06:09:39 PM
But the president has no power to suspend it and the congress only has the power when the sh**t has hit the fan.
There is no need to suspend the writ if the writ wasn't even applicable in the first place.

Where in the Constitution says that the write is inapplicable is the prisoner is delibritely held in foreign soil.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Emsworth on June 28, 2008, 11:23:53 PM
Where in the Constitution says that the write is inapplicable is the prisoner is delibritely held in foreign soil.
The Constitution doesn't even define what a writ of habeas corpus is, let alone indicate the range of its applicability. Thus, it is necessary for one to resort to the common law. The precedents show that writs have been granted for the benefit of citizens or subjects held on foreign territory, or for the benefit of aliens held on domestic territory, but never for the benefit of aliens held in foreign territory. In fact, in over five hundred years of English and American legal history, there does not appear to be a single instance of a writ of habeas corpus issuing for the benefit of an alien held in foreign territory.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: SPC on July 01, 2008, 01:12:52 AM
Where in the Constitution says that the write is inapplicable is the prisoner is delibritely held in foreign soil.
The Constitution doesn't even define what a writ of habeas corpus is, let alone indicate the range of its applicability. Thus, it is necessary for one to resort to the common law. The precedents show that writs have been granted for the benefit of citizens or subjects held on foreign territory being held in foreign territory, or for the benefit of aliens held on domestic territory, but never for the benefit of aliens held in foreign territory. In fact, in over five hundred years of English and American legal history, there does not appear to be a single instance of a writ of habeas corpus issuing for the benefit of an alien held in foreign territory.

Basic logic would show the ridiculousness of this. Don't try to play this both ways.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Emsworth on July 01, 2008, 07:29:45 AM
Where in the Constitution says that the write is inapplicable is the prisoner is delibritely held in foreign soil.
The Constitution doesn't even define what a writ of habeas corpus is, let alone indicate the range of its applicability. Thus, it is necessary for one to resort to the common law. The precedents show that writs have been granted for the benefit of citizens or subjects held on foreign territory being held in foreign territory, or for the benefit of aliens held on domestic territory, but never for the benefit of aliens held in foreign territory. In fact, in over five hundred years of English and American legal history, there does not appear to be a single instance of a writ of habeas corpus issuing for the benefit of an alien held in foreign territory.

Basic logic would show the ridiculousness of this. Don't try to play this both ways.
Then please use "basic logic" to demonstrate this supposed absurdity of my claim, instead of simply asserting your conclusion.

I am not saying that Justice Scalia and the other dissenters got it right in Boumediene. I'm merely saying that there is adequate justification for their position.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: SPC on July 01, 2008, 11:58:44 AM
Where in the Constitution says that the write is inapplicable is the prisoner is delibritely held in foreign soil.
The Constitution doesn't even define what a writ of habeas corpus is, let alone indicate the range of its applicability. Thus, it is necessary for one to resort to the common law. The precedents show that writs have been granted for the benefit of citizens or subjects held on foreign territory being held in foreign territory, or for the benefit of aliens held on domestic territory, but never for the benefit of aliens held in foreign territory. In fact, in over five hundred years of English and American legal history, there does not appear to be a single instance of a writ of habeas corpus issuing for the benefit of an alien held in foreign territory.

Basic logic would show the ridiculousness of this. Don't try to play this both ways.
Then please use "basic logic" to demonstrate this supposed absurdity of my claim, instead of simply asserting your conclusion.

I am not saying that Justice Scalia and the other dissenters got it right in Boumediene. I'm merely saying that there is adequate justification for their position.

You say that foreigners on our soil have a right of habeas corpus, and you also say that citizens on foreign soil have a right of habeas corpus. Therefore both foreigners and people on foreign soil have a right of habeas corpus, meaning that it could not be denied to foreigners on foreign soil.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Emsworth on July 01, 2008, 12:49:05 PM
You say that foreigners on our soil have a right of habeas corpus, and you also say that citizens on foreign soil have a right of habeas corpus. Therefore both foreigners and people on foreign soil have a right of habeas corpus, meaning that it could not be denied to foreigners on foreign soil.
Unfortunately, the law doesn't work in such a straightforward manner. There is a consistent line of precedent that states that, even though foreigners on domestic soil and citizens on foreign soil may request habeas corpus, foreigners on foreign soil cannot. This might seem contradictory, and it might seem illogical. Indeed, if one were approaching the whole issue afresh, without considering any prior court decisions on the subject, then this is hardly the conclusion one would reach. However, previous courts have confronted the issue, and for five centuries their answer has been consistently the same. The doctrine of stare decisis compels, at the very least, respect for their decisions, if not complete adherence.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: A18 on July 01, 2008, 12:57:36 PM
I thought Emsworth would call you out on your logical error. But he didn't, so I will.

There's a difference between saying X does not, by itself and without more, mean Y, and saying that X is irrelevant to the determination of Y.

Define "girl" as a non-adult female. If someone is a non-adult, that is relevant to the determination of whether the person is a girl. If someone is female, that is relevant to the determination of whether the person is a girl. Neither, by itself, is adequate.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: Albus Dumbledore on July 01, 2008, 01:35:01 PM
As long as we have the left in the US(consisted of 'progressives'/marxists/eco-puritans/greens) we need unrestricted gun ownership to be able to have some means of defending ourselves from them.


Title: Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed
Post by: SPC on July 01, 2008, 03:43:06 PM
You say that foreigners on our soil have a right of habeas corpus, and you also say that citizens on foreign soil have a right of habeas corpus. Therefore both foreigners and people on foreign soil have a right of habeas corpus, meaning that it could not be denied to foreigners on foreign soil.
Unfortunately, the law doesn't work in such a straightforward manner. There is a consistent line of precedent that states that, even though foreigners on domestic soil and citizens on foreign soil may request habeas corpus, foreigners on foreign soil cannot. This might seem contradictory, and it might seem illogical. Indeed, if one were approaching the whole issue afresh, without considering any prior court decisions on the subject, then this is hardly the conclusion one would reach. However, previous courts have confronted the issue, and for five centuries their answer has been consistently the same. The doctrine of stare decisis compels, at the very least, respect for their decisions, if not complete adherence.

Okay, but what right does the U.S. have to hold prisoners on foreign soil so as the prevent them from seeking habeas corpus?