coragryph

The Bush regime has claimed it has the authority to suspend Habeas Corpus, and to ignore all 5th and 6th Amendment Constitutional protections (which as phrased apply to all "persons" and anyone "accused), because Guantánamo Bay Naval Base is outside US jurisdiction. Yet it also claims legal authority to enforce American laws within the same jurisdiction.

Can anyone make a solid argument -- based on existing law or even just logic -- that the US should be able to suspend constitutional requirements with regard to detainees-- but somehow still has the authority to enforce its own laws against those detainees?

In other words, how can the US claim to be able to enforce its laws in a place where it says the Constitution doesn't apply?

I keep seeing lots of posts from people (granted, many of whom are trolls) that keep asking questions I'd like to answer. Such as questions about why people are presenting a particular argument, or how people can justify a particular position.

But I'm blocked from doing so -- and probably so are lots of other people. Which means the questions are being asked, but nobody is allowed to answer who might disagree with the poster.

Doesn't this defeat the entire purpose of Yahoo! Answers, which is to get and share information? Isn't it counter-productive to allow people to post questions, but only allow the people who agree with them to answer?

Bush just declared an effective coup, by stating that not only does he believe that he is above the law, but that he can block any attempt to prosecute any member of the executive branch for any alleged violation of law.

In other words, he has asserted that he is able to break the law with complete impunity, and there is nothing the courts or congress can do about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

If he has sworn an oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed, shouldn't that mean that US Attorneys would be required to prosecute a Contempt of Congress charge? Otherwise, there is no legal accountability.

How is this not effectively a bloodless coup?

I see lots of people saying that Bush can ignore subpoenas, and that Congress cannot compel executive branch officials to testify under oath at Congressional hearings. I've looked, and I cannot find any law or case the gives the Executive Branch blanket immunity from Congressional subpoenas. But I may be wrong.

So, can anyone please cite a federal statute, or a federal court case from any circuit recognizing such authority. And please don't just make bald statements about "separation of powers" or "because he's the president". If those are correct, then cite the appellate court that have recognized that common law authority.

I'm NOT talking about "the ends justify the means" debate.

I'm talking about whether it's sometimes useful to attempt something, even if you know you cannot succeed, because of the side-effects produced by the attempt.

And no, I'm not talking about Iraq. The specific example that prompted the general thought was someone reminding me that voting for a third-party candidate is not wasted effort, if it brings attention to how many people aren't satisfied with the two majority candidates. And another person talking about how much he learned researching a topic, even if the thesis could never be proven. In both cases, the side-effects of the attempt were worth the effort, even if the goal was unachievable.

Thoughts?

Many people keep asserting that Bush did not do anything wrong with his warrantless wiretapping program. Make your case. Explain using references to existing laws, cases, or legal theories why his admitted violations of FISA are legally justified.

Here are at least some of the relevant laws in question:

[50 USC 180x] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/...

[18 USC 2511] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/...

Make the case that he is not guilty. Not just by baldly asserting that as a conclusion. Make the legal case for the defense, and back up your arguments. Either disprove one of the required elements of the statute, or assert and prove an affirmative justification that is recognized by the law.

If so many people are convinced his actions are legal, read the laws yourself and make your case to prove your assertion.

Please cite chapter and verse, as well as version. And give the entire quote, in context.

Don't bother with blank statements that just baldly assert it's wrong without specific references and quotations.

Most people contemplate suicide out of depression or fear or some extreme emotional condition. But what if someone wasn't being emotional, wasn't suffering any clinical or medical condition, and had simply spent a long time (months) evaluating the benefits and disadvantages, eventually reaching the conclusion that suicide was the most logical rational choice. Someone asked me this question the other day, and I didn’t have a ready answer. So, I'm wondering what others think.

Are there situations where it can all come down to a cost-benefit analysis, like any other personal or business decision? Can suicide ever be considered a rational logical decision?

I keep hearing people make the argument that illegal immigrants have more rights than legal resident aliens or citizens. I'm curious exactly what rights people think they have that others don't.

Clearly not any of the rights reserved in Article IV or the 14th Amendment for citizens. Clearly not any of the protections from the 1st, 4th, 5th or 6th Amendment, which apply to everyone.

So, exactly what rights do Illegal Immigrants have that legal residents do not?

There are a lot of people shouting about illegal activity in a lot of different contexts. And regardless of the situation, one side is saying that breaking the law is acceptable, and someone else is saying that people need to stand trial and pay for their crimes.

Let's take a very simple situation, and deal with a valid law that has been in place for 25 years.

1) Person Breaks the Law.

2) Person Publicly Admits Breaking the Law.

3) Person goes to Trial for Breaking the Law.

That's called the rule of law. That's the way this country is supposed to work. If the person claims: "I was justified in doing that", fine. Just like saying "We needed to do that so people didn't die". Fine. That's called an affirmative defense. Either way, the issues are resolved at trial.

But under what circumstances should we not even bother to have the trial? No charges. No Defenses. No trial at all. When do we ignore the rule of law entirely, and just say that we don't care if the law gets broken?

Somewhere there must be a balance point between total freedom with no security, and total govt surveillance with no liberty or privacy. But what is that balance point? If you could rewrite all the laws (and the Constitution if necessary), where would you draw that line?

Or put another way, what would the govt have to show to be able to limit your freedom and intrude on your privacy? That some serious threat exists somewhere? That some significant threat exists and you might be involved? That you personally are a threat? And how much proof is needed to justify the intrusion or regulation? Clear and convincing evidence? Probable cause? Reasonable Suspicion? Just a hunch?

I'm not asking whether any existing programs are good or bad, legal or illegal. Just where you think the legal lines should be drawn. Best answer goes to the most clearly written and logically consistent argument supporting why you would draw the line there, whether I agree with it or not.

On Friday August 25th, I conducted an experiment. I spent the day answering political questions with nothing but short sound-bites of fundamentalist rhetorical dogma, as opposed to my more common long-winded (some say, boring) philosophical sermons about tolerance. Many people emailed me asking what had happened to me. But several also brought to light an interesting question...

What is more important to you, the message or the person speaking it? If someone you trust says something that you find offensive, how often do you take it at face value just because of who said it? Or if someone that you despise happens to say something you would agree with (had anyone else said it), do you accept their statement because you agree with the message, or reject it because you don't like the speaker?

What influences you more, the message or the speaker?

On Friday August 25th, I conducted an experiment. I spent the day answering political questions using nothing by ultra-conservative fundamentalist rhetoric, deliberately written so that there was no internal logic or intellectual consistency to what I was saying. The experiment was to prove a point, and to pave the way for this question --

Which contributes more to a thorough debate: short sound-bites that state one viewpoint without any tolerance for differences, or long-winded sermons about tolerance and mutual respect, exploring the issue from multiple perspectives?

Do both contribute, by showing the ends of the spectrum as well as the middle? Is there any value in tolerance on issues that are so emotionally charged? Is there value to the rhetoric and the dogma that holds one end of the spectrum as being the One True Way™ ?

Is there a place for both, and is there a need for both…? Thoughts and comments appreciated.

Let's start with two premises. First, let's assume for sake of argument that the embryo does have independent legal rights. Second, let's agree that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her own body, but does not have the right to harm the embryo. In other words, she has a say in what happens to her, but no say in what happens to the child.

Solution -- each state sets up a registry of surrogate mothers, from those who are pro-life. Anytime someone doesn't want to be pregnant, the state will randomly select a surrogate from this list, sort of like jury selection. The embryo will then be transplanted from the original mother to the surrogate, and both will sign adoption papers transferring full custody to the new mother.

That gives the original mother her personal choice to opt-out of being involved in the pregnancy, and the pro-life people are happy because no embryo will ever be killed.

Seems like a win-win for both sides. Any objections?

A group has come forward, trying to say that the federal judge who ruled that the NSA wiretapping program was illegal should never have heard the case. Their argument is that the judge is a board member for a non-profit charitable group (Community Foundation -- www.cfsem.org) that made a donation to one ACLU chapter to promote gay rights. A different chapter of the ACLU was involved as legal counsel in the warrantless wiretapping case. The group making the claim admits that the judge wasn't ever actually directly involved with the plaintiff chapter, but argues that it might create the appearance of impropriety.

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/632/08-23-2006/925100...

So, the question: is this just a tactic to discredit the judge because she ruled against the government, or do you think this represents a sufficient actual conflict of interest that she should be retroactively removed from the case?

If our government were allowed to fund one, and only one, of the following social programs, which should it be and why?

(1) Free public education for all US citizens, starting at kindergarten up through Associates Degree (or comparable professional certification).

(2) Free health-care (medical and dental) for all US citizens for life.

(3) Food stamps that can only be used to buy food for children who are US citizens, but that would be enough to eliminate child hunger nationwide.

(4) Retirement pay (social security) for all US citizens who worked at least 20 years in the US, starting at age 65.

(5) Disability pay for all US citizens who are unable to work because of physical disability, injury or illness.

(6) None of the above. Give the money back to the taxpayers.

If the government could only fund one of these programs, which would you pick, and why.

I'm asking this question again, eliminating any possible reference to one side or the other. I'm referring to any and all other posters out there who spend so much time and effort bashing the opposition party and making derogatory comments about entire political parties. Whatever your affiliation, and whoever you bash. This is a neutral question.

I honestly am curious what you are trying to accomplish. Do you see this as the best way to present your views? Or are you trying to convince people to change sides? Or do you see the other party as a threat, and this is your way of combating that threat? What is your goal?

This is not a rhetorical question, or an insult. I really am just trying to understand your perspective.

And to those who do not engage in this behavior, I understand the theoretical reasons why someone might do this. I'm actually trying to gain insight into the goals of specific individuals, on both sides of the spectrum.

Let's start with the premise that as a society, certain minimal benefits need to be provided by the government: roads, emergency services, law enforcement, defense. Those ensure that society keeps functioning. The rest are social and regulatory programs: public education, welfare, environmental protection, etc.

What if we changed the model. Everybody pays a flat property tax if they own property, and everybody pays a flat income tax. Those funds pay for the necessary minimum essential services listed above, but not for social programs. Anything left over goes into a pool, which every citizen gets to draw from in equal shares. You decide how to use the draw money.

No more free public education, but you can use your draw to pay for costs of school. No more welfare, but you can use your draw. Or you can pocket it. Whatever you want.

This model provides the same benefits as the current tax system, but people don't have to pay for any services they don't want.

Could the system work?

It's generally agreed that "respecting" means supporting or endorsing. But look at the word "an" in the phrase "an establishment of religion".

Current jurisprudence treats the clause as if it read "respecting the establishment of religion", and treating "establishment" as a verb. To establish. Congress shall make no law to establish a religion.

But the text reads "respecting AN establishment of religion". Now, you can get the same result as above by treating "establishment" as a gerundive participle (a form of a verb) like "enactment". Congress shall make no law that establishes a religion.

But what if "establishment" was being used as a noun? What if the clause was referring to any religious establishment, aka a church or religious organization. Congress shall make no law supporting/endorsing a religious organization.

Does treating "establishment" as a noun change the meaning of the clause?

Seriously. There is apparently a very large percentage of the population that thinks this should be a Christian nation. They want prayer in the schools, Christian displays in government buildings, and Christian morals enacted as laws. They oppose same-sex marriage and gay adoption because their religion says homosexuality is bad. They oppose freedom of choice because they don't like the choices. Not to mention that we have a currently entrenched government that doesn't value the rest of the Constitution, objects to courts that try to protect Constitutional rights, and thinks the Commander-in-Sheik should be above the law. So, let's say they're right. How many people out there think this country has become unsalvageable and think it's time to follow the example of our Founding Fathers and find someplace free from religious and political persecution? Show of hands, how many are up for going elsewhere and founding a new country, and trying to get it right this time? Seriously.