Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2014, 11:23:20 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 341
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What's the worst show on the cable news networks? on: July 02, 2008, 12:30:10 pm
Lou Dobbs.
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed 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.
3  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed 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.
4  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed 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.
5  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed 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.
6  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Second Amendment Decision on: June 27, 2008, 04:53:38 pm
"The people" refers to the militia. Back then, everyone was part of a militia.
The composition of the militia is irrelevant. Whatever militia may have meant in the eighteenth century, and whatever it means now, the meaning of the term "people" is quite plain. The right of the people to bear arms is protected; it does not depend on membership in any organization.
7  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed 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.
8  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Second Amendment Decision on: June 27, 2008, 01:33:56 pm
The Supreme Court's decision is quite obviously correct. Firstly, the plain text of the Second Amendment is crystal-clear; it provides that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to people, and not to members of any particular militia. Secondly, the provisions of the Constitution that protect rights deserve broad, liberal interpretations, not strict, narrow ones. Thus, even if there were some sort of ambiguity in the Second Amendment, it should be resolved in favor of the right, not against it.
9  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed 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."
10  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Opinion of the ban against the death penalty for child rapists on: June 27, 2008, 09:00:55 am
This Supreme Court decision is "correct" in the sense that it is consistent with the Court's precedents and with the analytical framework it has applied in prior cases. Of course, that analytical framework is itself highly suspect, as Justice Scalia has explained in a number of his dissents.
11  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed 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.
12  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: Gun right affirmed 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?
13  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: Louisiana Supreme Court upholds death penalty for rape of an 8-year-old girl on: June 25, 2008, 02:44:05 pm
I totally agree.  I've noticed that a number of correct decisions: Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, and Roper v. Simmons, to name a few, aren't grounded all that strongly in actual Constitutional law.
There's nothing wrong with the decision reached in Brown v. Board. The Court's opinion did not include the best arguments, but the result was perfectly sound.

Roe and Roper, on the other hand, leave a lot to be desired.
14  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: Louisiana Supreme Court upholds death penalty for rape of an 8-year-old girl on: June 25, 2008, 01:26:42 pm
If the "national consensus" standard is applied to Kennedy as it has been applied in other cases (i.e., by simply counting the number of states that impose a particular punishment), then the majority probably reached the correct result. I am not persuaded by the argument that state legislatures across the country would have liked to impose capital punishment for child rape, but were stifled by language in Coker.

The problem lies not with the Court's application of the national consensus test, but with the test itself. It is absurd and illogical to say that a punishment is constitutional if more than 50% of the states impose it, and unconstitutional otherwise.
15  General Discussion / History / Re: should jeff davis have been hanged? on: June 20, 2008, 06:08:39 pm
New England flirted with this option several times in the early parts of the 19th century and secession was taught as a legal option at West Point.
It is absolutely true that a number of states regarded secession as constitutionally permissible. However, it is the actual text of the document, and not the interpretation of any particular state, that must dictate the outcome.

Quote
On top of that the US govt supported Texas in its' secession from Mexico as well as supported Panama in its' secession from Columbia. To claim that the govt has not accepted secession as a valid legal option or that the union is perpetual would just further perpetuate the Yankee myth of history.
We need not even look as far as Texas or Panama. The United States themselves originally "seceded" from the empire of Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence was a violation of British law; in fact, it amounted to treason. In all probability, Texas' secession from Mexico and Panama's secession from Mexico were also illegal.

I am only claiming that secession violates the Constitution of the United States. But that does not mean that secession would never be justified. Indeed, even illegal actions (such as a revolution) are sometimes acceptable responses to tyranny.
16  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Hate Speech and the First Amendment on: June 15, 2008, 01:58:33 pm
That's not exactly correct. The courts have held that hate speech that is not likely to incite imminent violence to be protected by the First Amendment, whereas the very same words, in a situation where imminent violence is likely to be the result of such speech, are not protected.
I will restate the position I expressed in my earlier post: The government may not distinguish between hate speech that causes violence and other speech that causes violence. This is not merely my view, but the law of the land, according to the Supreme Court's decision in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. You are correct that the same words may cause violence in one context, and fail to do so in another context, but I do not see how this fact is in any way responsive to my claim that hateful and non-hateful speech must be treated identically.
17  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Hate Speech and the First Amendment on: June 14, 2008, 07:52:47 am
I'm simply saying that is the standard. Hate speech can be banned in situations where it will incite "imminent" violence. Moreover, the courts have been pretty good at maintaining this standard so far. The "slippery slope" argument hasn't proven to be applicable here.
Strictly speaking, the government cannot just ban hate speech that incites violence. It must prohibit either all speech producing violence, or none. In other words, the First Amendment forbids the government from discriminating between hate speech and other speech.
18  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Dems (and others on the left), do you prefer to "battle" Libertarians or Fun on: June 10, 2008, 10:25:36 pm
Do you know the level of Tax evasion corporations commit everywhere (or are they fighting for freedom)?
If, by "tax evasion," you mean tax mitigation, then I do not see what the problem is. Everyone is entitled to arrange his affairs so that his taxes are as low as possible. If, by "tax evasion," you mean the crime of tax evasion, then I have not seen enough evidence to endorse your conclusion. Certainly, one does not regularly hear of corporations being prosecuted for tax evasion.

Quote
Btw, Emsworth name me three corporations you consider to be good.
I do not presume to evaluate the harms or benefits of any particular company; , in the absence of anything even approaching perfect information, I cannot possibly do so. But I am quite sure that the free market system as a whole is preferable to any alternative of which I am aware.
 
Quote
Not a good comparsion given the level of co-operation between Chevron, Halliburton & Co and the war effort. Though I guess that goes under cronyism.
I will suppose, for the sake of argument, that oil and other companies lobbied for the war. Isn't it very telling that the government is so willing to subordinate the public interest to the interests of a narrow class? The war in Iraq is just one example; protectionist policies, farm subsidies, and "corporate welfare" are others.

Speaking of corporate welfare, I would note that I am not a fan of corporations or businesses as such. I also strongly support the existence and the activites of labor unions, and would oppose state interference with strikes.

Quote
I wonder what is opinion on "natural monopolies" are and would should be done about public Transport.
I have no pressing objections to antitrust laws, or to the existence of public transport. These rather minor violations of liberty have, at the very least, plausible public policy justifications. But, strictly speaking, they are violations of liberty nevertheless.
19  General Discussion / History / Re: should jeff davis have been hanged? on: June 10, 2008, 07:05:37 pm
Quote
First of all, the Constitution was ratifed under the pretext that states could secede from the Union, so changing that interpretation would be illegal.
Firstly, you have not provided any evidence whatsoever for this claim. Secondly, the claim is, even disregarding the lack of evidence, utterly without merit.

The Articles of Confederation, which predated the Constitution, explicitly provided that "the Union shall be perpetual." It is hard to imagine that the Constitution, which was clearly intended to authorize more centralization rather than less, would have repealed the perpetuity of the Union. It is even harder to imagine that such a repeal would have been achieved by implication, rather than by the insertion of an express clause authorizing secession.

More importantly, however, the pretext under which the Constitution may or may not have been ratified is utterly irrelevant. More relevant are the text and nature of the document. Both suggest that secession is forbidden.

Quote
Second, any contract that prevents one party from withdrawing from the contract would be a slave contract, and thus invalid.

There are a number of problems with this view. Most importantly, the Constitution is not a mere contract. It is the "law of the land."

But even if we accept the idea that the Constitution is a contract, your analysis is inadequate. By definition, a contract is binding. The whole point of a contract is that all parties irrevocably commit themselves to the terms. This is why breach of contract is forbidden.

Quote
Third, the fact is that the Constitution is not binding since all of the original signers are dead.

I am not attempting to discuss whether secession is just or unjust. I am merely saying that it is unconstitutional. If you want to argue that the Constitution is not binding because its signers are dead, you are free to do so, but I doubt that any reasonable person would take you seriously.

But the states that ratified the Contract are still alive.

Last time I checked, states weren't human. As far as I'm concerned, only individuals can ratify contracts.

But the States were the main groups in the Contract.

If only individuals can ratify contracts, then the Constitution is not a contract, because it was ratified by the states. You are simply contradicting yourself.
20  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Dems (and others on the left), do you prefer to "battle" Libertarians or Fun on: June 10, 2008, 11:20:50 am
I was first exposed to Charles Dickens by a made-for-TV adaptation of David Copperfield on PBS.  Without that, I might still not know who Mr. Micawber was.  I've seen some fairly incredible things on Masterpiece Theatre.  And all for free on the public airwaves, not on some premium HBO channel.
Free? Do you not pay taxes?

Quote
Privatized and deregulated like the power companies?  No more Enrons, please.
It is true that there have been a number of cases in which a private corporation violates the law, causing great harm to the public. But there is an even greater number of cases in which a corporation operates perfectly legally, greatly improving the general welfare in the process. Needless to say, only the former type of situation makes the headlines. One should not focus on the scandals while ignoring all of the good work companies have done.

More importantly, though, consider the alternative. One cannot pretend that corporations are corrupt while governments are simply paragons of virtue. In truth, the government is likely to be far more corrupt than any corporation, simply because of the nature and extent of its power.

Consider, furthermore, that while corporations can cause harm, governments can cause even more harm. To my knowledge, no corporation in recent memory has caused the needless deaths of tens of thousands of people. Can you say the same about the government of the United States, guilty as it is of waging an utterly unjustified war in Iraq? Can you say the same about other governments across the world?

Quote
Any ideology whose definition of "freedom," undermines social cohesion, involves the further atomization of society, and advocates a lack of interest in collective action to benefit mankind, yes, is dangerous.
Libertarianism does not preclude collective action. In fact, if individuals want to act collectively to benefit mankind, a libertarian model would leave them perfectly free to do so.
21  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Dems (and others on the left), do you prefer to "battle" Libertarians or Fun on: June 08, 2008, 09:28:07 pm
Libertarians who engage in so-called "good government" rhetoric and try to take away earmarks and so-called "pork projects" that revitalize communities ...
It is undeniable that pork barrel projects produce positive effects for some parts of the country. However, these effects are not produced for free. They cost money, which could hypothetically have been used elsewhere for some other purpose. For all we know, that other use could have been far more beneficial. The question then becomes whether the government or the market is better at determining which purpose is more important.

Some government expenditures are so obviously critical to society that sacrificing the hypothetical private alternatives is justified. Almost everyone would agree that defending the nation or maintaining a legal system falls into this category of absolutely imperative government expenditure; most would add public education and welfare to the list; some might even support universal healthcare. But to put a $70,000 appropriation for the Paper Industry Hall of Fame on the same plane simply revolts the intelligence.

Quote
  Libertarians who oppose government subsidies of attempts to culture and enlighten Americans (from the NEA to PBS&NPR) assist in the dumbing-down of our great land.
Who is the government to determine what the nation's culture should be? The very notion sounds quite elitist to me.
22  General Discussion / History / Re: should jeff davis have been hanged? on: June 08, 2008, 08:57:22 pm
The Constitution's text, moreover, confirms that its application to a particular place may cease. Congress can unquestionably dispose of acquired territory; see Article IV, Sect. 3, cl. 2: "[t]he Congress shall have power to dispose of ... Territory ... belonging to the United States."
I believe that I have discussed this objection to the supremacy clause argument before (see here).

Of course, you are perfectly correct that the territory clause allows Congress to dispose of federal territory, thereby terminating the applicability of the Constitution in that territory. Likewise, the amendment clause in Article V allows the states to terminate the applicability of the Constitution, either in part or in whole, with respect to any part of the country whatsoever. Clearly, the "once American soil, always American soil" principle is utterly invalid. But that was not the principle I was advancing. Rather, I was arguing that a state may not unilaterally adopt a declaration that it is no longer subject to the Constitution and laws of the United States (which is all secession amounts to).

I agree that the nature and framework of the Constitution are inconsistent with secession. Indeed, to some extent, I accept the reasonability of your alternative reading of the supremacy clause, and only prefer my interpretation because it is more consistent with the intentions of the framers and ratifiers as expressed in the Preamble, and with the nature of the document as a whole.
23  General Discussion / History / Re: should jeff davis have been hanged? on: June 08, 2008, 05:25:55 pm
The Supremacy Clause argument is circular. The issue is precisely whether a state, upon declaration of secession, is still a part of "the Land."
That's a rather literalistic interpretation of the term of art "law of the land."

The Constitution cannot be "supreme" if another legislative act (namely, the declaration of secession) can completely displace it, nor can it be "law" if obedience to it is purely voluntary.
24  General Discussion / History / Re: should jeff davis have been hanged? on: June 08, 2008, 10:59:18 am
In theory, I do not believe there is an "unbreakable" contract.  While I don't see the 10th Amendment as granting a right to secede, I think in 1861, could have been done.

The Constitution  is not an unbearable contract, but one that cannot be broken by one party without the consent of the others.
I agree that secession would be permissible with the consent of the other states. However, there appears to be only one constitutionally recognized mechanism by which the states can grant such consent: ratifying a constitutional amendment.

I reiterate my view that secession is inconsistent with the text of the Constitution (specifically, the supremacy clause). However, I do not see the legality or constitutionality of secession as a remotely relevant issue. Remember that the United States itself became independent by "seceding" from Great Britain. Declaring and fighting for independence was technically an act of treason, and a manifest violation of British law. That does not mean, however, that the American War of Independence was immoral or philosophically unjustified. Indeed, practically nobody cares that the war was illegal.
25  General Discussion / History / Re: should jeff davis have been hanged? on: June 08, 2008, 10:00:32 am
There is also an argument that the Earth is flat, but the facts suggest otherwise.  Whether the states could secede or not is not a matter of opinion, the 10th amendment makes their right to secede a fact.
There is absolutely no basis for this interpretation of the 10th amendment. Secession is inconsistent not only with the spirit and framework of the Constitution, but also with the text. A declaration of secession is equivalent to a declaration that the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States shall no longer apply to a particular state. But the supremacy clause makes the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States the "supreme Law of the Land," "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 341


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines