Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Habeas Corpus!

  1. #21
    Jakko's Avatar
    Jakko is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, US
    Posts
    4,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by child_of_serenity View Post
    The Civil war and WW2 are very different than the circumstances we are in currently. Simply, comparing the two is ridiculous, and even though they did happen it doesn't mean it was really the right thing to do. The states during the second world war was a very hard place to live. Speaking out against something that is wrong is something I have the right to do.
    Oh? Care to say how they are different?
    Let's see? Is it because there are no attacks on American citizens?
    No Americans soldiers fighting in hostile soil?
    America not considered in a state of war, with the threat of homegrown attacks calling for an increase in security?

    Not any of those. Before you make a "ridiculous" statement, I suggest you enumerate the reasons. Helpful tip. Oh, and also, you should consider the fact that saying "something is wrong," unequivocally, throws a great deal of bias into any further statement you make, making it that much harder for others to see things your way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    Why is it idiotic to complain about the fact that your government is acting unconstitutionally? I don't know how you have it in the states, but if anyone tried to pull shit like this here in Finland, they would get thrown out of office imediately.
    That is the problem. Technically, in times of war, the law allows such things. It is not, at the moment, unconstitutional. The reason why I think it is idiotic to complain? Because, despite the fact that people say "you can make a difference," that is really just a fairy tail. You really cannot make a difference, you can only elect people to make a difference. =p
    The other reason, the more important reason, why I don't want people to complain is this: if people complain, they will make a law repealing this. This is exactly what I do not want, as laws can be easily appealed. No, what I want instead is for us not to complain, and instead for a court case to be made that goes before the Supreme Court. Make a final judgement on it, one that is almost impossible to remove. A permanent, not a quick, fix, I am saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    With the slight difference that it was done legally back then (at least during the civil war). The US today is not in a state of war, no matter what some alarmists would like to believe.
    The repealing of "habeas corpus" was actually illegal and unconstitutional during the War for Southern Independence(God Bless the South), as ruled by our supreme court years later. And you and I both know that even if we are not in a "state of war," as long as the public thinks it, it is true for the government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    That's an dangerously optimistic point of view to take when it comes to fundamental rights. Even if it wasn't obvious that the executive is trying to hijack as much authority as possible, the suspension of fundamental rights is not something to be taken that lightly.
    Not really. As I state above, it is because, in every instance this has happened in the past, the Supreme Court has "put the smack-down" on the branch that tries to do this. Why? Because history shows that the branches, especially the judicial, hate it when the other branches step on their toes, and guard their power closely. They love using things like this to enforce their power. I want this to happen, in fact. A law is only a temporary respite, a ruling, well, that is another thing entirely.


    P.S. - Oh yeah, forgot the last reason. Because I like sniping back and forth with Seren. =p No offense, right? This is just fun.

  2. #22
    Sherman is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Tokyo
    Posts
    2,227

    Default

    Wow. I actually agree whole-heartedly with Saizou on this one. Habeas Corpus is one of THE fundamental rights we have as human beings. To have it officially removed, except possibly in times of extreeeeme emergency, is pretty damn unconscionable.

  3. #23
    Jakko's Avatar
    Jakko is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, US
    Posts
    4,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman View Post
    Wow. I actually agree whole-heartedly with Saizou on this one. Habeas Corpus is one of THE fundamental rights we have as human beings. To have it officially removed, except possibly in times of extreeeeme emergency, is pretty damn unconscionable.
    I also agree.

    However, we are talking about America. And in America, there are only two (mostly) ironclad ways to protect something, or at least make almost impossible to change: constitutional amendments, and Supreme Court rulings.
    After the fiasco that was prohibition, legislators are very wary of making emotionally charged amendments. Plus, it would be nigh impossible to pass, regardless.

    At the same time, just a regular law can be easily overruled. The best, the most effective way, is to have the SC rule on it. And for that to happen, there needs to be a reason for it to be ruled on(and if there is already a [temporary] law protecting it, there SC will see no reason to rule on it). For that reason, I think anyone that complains on this, and tries to make a law, is an idiot, because they are shooting themselves in the foot, as I see it. I want it to come to a head and have to be ruled on.

  4. #24
    Aikido is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    The real shocker is that it's fucking obvious to anyone with half a brain that the executive has been making a huge, unconstitutional power grab, but if you say so you get a bunch of right-wingers calling you a liberal commie and dismissing anything you have to say as biased.

    It's both annoying and intellectually dishonest, and it seems that this mindset has permeated the republican party, and indeed most of the american right, through and through. All I can say is that it's idiotic.
    This is nothing new. This has been going on since the beginning of the nineteenth century, most notably with Wilson. There is a lot of publicity coming out about this now because of the push for greater accountability and transparency from grass-roots orgs. The timing is really perfect. Personally, I think this next election could set a lot of political precedence for years to come.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakko View Post
    The reason why I think it is idiotic to complain? Because, despite the fact that people say "you can make a difference," that is really just a fairy tail. You really cannot make a difference, you can only elect people to make a difference. =p
    AND
    as long as the public thinks it, it is true for the government.
    eat those words jakko.

    EDIT: good to hear from you again Saizou, feels like you haven't been around. Then again, neither have I really. And naturally from jakko, sherman, and CoS, as well, but you've all been around so...

  5. #25
    Saizou is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    1,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakko View Post
    That is the problem. Technically, in times of war, the law allows such things. It is not, at the moment, unconstitutional.
    Actually, that's not the case. Suspending Habeas Corpus constitutionally requires an rebellion or foreign invasion.

    Quote Originally Posted by US Constitution, article one, section nine
    The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it
    Since ther hasn't been a rebellion nor an invasion, it's blatantly unconstitutional.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakko
    The reason why I think it is idiotic to complain? Because, despite the fact that people say "you can make a difference," that is really just a fairy tail. You really cannot make a difference, you can only elect people to make a difference. =p
    The other reason, the more important reason, why I don't want people to complain is this: if people complain, they will make a law repealing this. This is exactly what I do not want, as laws can be easily appealed. No, what I want instead is for us not to complain, and instead for a court case to be made that goes before the Supreme Court. Make a final judgement on it, one that is almost impossible to remove. A permanent, not a quick, fix, I am saying.
    The problem is that the supreme court decides what cases it will accept, so there's no guarantee that the question will be raised at all. Of course, if we could get a supreme court ruling it would be optimal, but sadly I don't think that it will be possible. Thus, it's up to Congress to take some responsibility, and a large amount of voters complaining will push them towards taking it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakko
    The repealing of "habeas corpus" was actually illegal and unconstitutional during the War for Southern Independence(God Bless the South), as ruled by our supreme court years later.
    That is somewhat mystifying since the constitution allows the suspension in cases of rebellion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakko
    And you and I both know that even if we are not in a "state of war," as long as the public thinks it, it is true for the government.
    Quote Originally Posted by US Constitution, article one, section eight
    The Congress shall have power...To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water
    No. Legally, you're in a state of war when congress declares war against someone. The misconceptions of the public should not trump the constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakko
    Not really. As I state above, it is because, in every instance this has happened in the past, the Supreme Court has "put the smack-down" on the branch that tries to do this. Why? Because history shows that the branches, especially the judicial, hate it when the other branches step on their toes, and guard their power closely. They love using things like this to enforce their power. I want this to happen, in fact. A law is only a temporary respite, a ruling, well, that is another thing entirely.
    Unless the executive decides to pull a "King Andrew" and ignore the judiciary altoghether. There is historical precendent for that as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aikido
    EDIT: good to hear from you again Saizou, feels like you haven't been around. Then again, neither have I really. And naturally from jakko, sherman, and CoS, as well, but you've all been around so...
    Yeah, I haven't been able to be around much. I will be around more from now on, however.

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162