Thread Tools
Old March 11, 2003, 22:55   #31
Knight2003
Settler
 
Local Time: 21:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 0
Quote by Berzerker:

Do you think Lincoln should have had every Confederate soldier tried in a court of law to determine guilt or innocense via due process?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Every confederate soldier was actually given a official pardon by the President. No confederate soldiers were tried for treason. That isn't why Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus because he wanted to control rioting anti-draft protestors.
Knight2003 is offline  
Old March 11, 2003, 22:57   #32
Oerdin
Deity
 
Oerdin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: In a bamboo forest hiding from Dale.
Posts: 17,436
The courts have been very consistent. People caught in the U.S. or held in American terrority have to go through the normal legal process; those persons who are not citizens and whom are located outside the U.S. (like in Cuba) are fair game.
__________________
Christianity is the belief in a cosmic Jewish zombie who can give us eternal life if we symbolically eat his flesh and blood and telepathically tell him that we accept him as our lord and master so he can remove an evil force present in all humanity because a woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from an apple tree.
Oerdin is offline  
Old March 11, 2003, 23:43   #33
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Knight -
Quote:
Every confederate soldier was actually given a official pardon by the President. No confederate soldiers were tried for treason. That isn't why Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus because he wanted to control rioting anti-draft protestors.
I know why he did it, I'm merely offering Ramo an example of an extreme circumstance that might warrant suspending habeus corpus. His motives aside, did Lincoln need to observe due process for all those Confederate soldiers? How could he hold them in prison camps until the end of the war without due process and provide trials for each and every one of them if no pardon was forthcoming? Yes, he pardoned them once the war was over, to help the healing process start combined with the realisation that trying millions of insurgents wasn't practical. But that doesn't change the fact the Civil War is an excellent example for why the Framers allowed an exception to habeus corpus in the Constitution. It wasn't so much a concern about a few Americans supporting a foreign invader, but a rebellion from within like the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania.
Berzerker is offline  
Old March 12, 2003, 02:48   #34
Ramo
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Ramo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Fear and Oil
Posts: 5,892
Quote:
So, what are these extreme circumstances? How about a rebellion instigated by hispanics in the southwest, or neo-Nazi skinheads in the Pacific northwest, or maybe a bunch of whacked out drug addicted libertarians all over the country burdening the courts with thousands, if not millions of insurgents.
I don't see the legitimacy of detention if a fair trial isn't allowed. Considering the number of prisoners in our prison system, I don't think that increasing the caseload of the courts by thousands or even a million is impossible. I do see the legitimacy of temporary detention (a short, well defined period of detention before trial so everything can get a chance of being sorted out), however.

Quote:
Do you think Lincoln should have had every Confederate soldier tried in a court of law to determine guilt or innocense via due process?
You mean Confederate PoW's? Yes, I'd say so. Of course, a speedy trial would have to be better defined.

Quote:
Every confederate soldier was actually given a official pardon by the President. No confederate soldiers were tried for treason. That isn't why Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus because he wanted to control rioting anti-draft protestors.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to prevent Maryland from seceding. He suspended it right after Fort Sumter, the draft riot took place a couple years later.
__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Ramo is offline  
Old March 12, 2003, 04:11   #35
HershOstropoler
Settler
 
Local Time: 22:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 0
A positive surprise, but how long will it last?

I'd put an 80 % chance on the appeals court or this SC to overturn it.
__________________
“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)
HershOstropoler is offline  
Old March 12, 2003, 05:41   #36
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Ramo -
Quote:
I don't see the legitimacy of detention if a fair trial isn't allowed. Considering the number of prisoners in our prison system, I don't think that increasing the caseload of the courts by thousands or even a million is impossible. I do see the legitimacy of temporary detention (a short, well defined period of detention before trial so everything can get a chance of being sorted out), however.
If there was a rebellion with several million insurgents, habeus corpus and due process would suffer because the system would be overwhelmed. It doesn't matter if it's 'legitimate", only if it's practical. The Framers foresaw situations that could overwhelm the judiciary and made provision in the Constitution to deal with the potential problem. After all, they saw the Whiskey Rebellion in their own day so they had experience with just such a situation.

Quote:
You mean Confederate PoW's? Yes, I'd say so. Of course, a speedy trial would have to be better defined.
According to the north, they weren't POW's, they were rebels, insurgents, American citizens who were violating the law. So, how in the hell could northern courts give every Confederate soldier, sympathiser, hell, just about every southernor excluding slaves, a trial with due process? You wanted an extreme situation and I gave you one - a somewhat popular rebellion.
Berzerker is offline  
Old March 12, 2003, 05:51   #37
TheStinger
Civilization III Democracy Game
King
 
TheStinger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: International crime fighting playboy
Posts: 1,063
Shouldn't someone be able to appeal their designation as an enemy combatant
__________________
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
Douglas Adams (Influential author)
TheStinger is offline  
Old March 12, 2003, 07:01   #38
Straybow
Civilization II Succession GamesSpanish CiversPtWDG2 TabemonoAlpha Centauri Democracy GameNationStatesGalCiv Apolyton EmpireTrade Wars / BlackNova TradersCivilization II Democracy Game
Emperor
 
Straybow's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: LF & SG(2)... still here in our hearts
Posts: 6,230
Quote:
I'd put an 80 % chance on the appeals court or this SC to overturn it.
You seriously underestimate the value currently placed on search/seizure and fair trial constraints here in the USofA. So did Ashcroft's people in directing such action.
__________________
(\__/) Save a bunny, eat more Smurf!
(='.'=) Sponsored by the National Smurfmeat Council
(")_(") Smurf, the original blue meat! © 1999, patent pending, ® and ™ (except that "Smurf" bit)
Straybow is offline  
Old March 12, 2003, 07:03   #39
HershOstropoler
Settler
 
Local Time: 22:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 0
Maybe. But this SC has been quite leniant on search/seizure.

As for fair trial, it's dead.
__________________
“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)
HershOstropoler is offline  
Old March 12, 2003, 07:27   #40
Sikander
King
 
Sikander's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Posts: 1,417
Quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
A positive surprise, but how long will it last?

I'd put an 80 % chance on the appeals court or this SC to overturn it.
I'll put $100 (U.S.) against your $400 (U.S.) that it isn't overturned. Constitutional law is simple, and this judge is right.
__________________
He's got the Midas touch.
But he touched it too much!
Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!
Sikander is offline  
Old March 12, 2003, 07:31   #41
HershOstropoler
Settler
 
Local Time: 22:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 0
"Constitutional law is simple"

Unfortunately, it is not.

"and this judge is right"

He is. But if being right were the key, how do you explain Roe v Wade or Bush v Gore?
__________________
“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)
HershOstropoler is offline  
Old March 12, 2003, 07:55   #42
Sikander
King
 
Sikander's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Posts: 1,417
Quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Constitutional law is simple"

Unfortunately, it is not.
It's certainly much simpler than any other sort of law. All I have to do is read a few pages to get the idea behind the law, rather than volumes of common law.

Quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"and this judge is right"

He is. But if being right were the key, how do you explain Roe v Wade or Bush v Gore?
Those were Supreme Court decisions, and not subject to review by another court. I find that the vast majority of the time a good decision by a lower court ends up prevailing in the end, which is why I am willing to put my money down.
__________________
He's got the Midas touch.
But he touched it too much!
Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!
Sikander is offline  
Old March 14, 2003, 05:29   #43
Ramo
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Ramo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Fear and Oil
Posts: 5,892
Quote:
If there was a rebellion with several million insurgents, habeus corpus and due process would suffer because the system would be overwhelmed. It doesn't matter if it's 'legitimate", only if it's practical. The Framers foresaw situations that could overwhelm the judiciary and made provision in the Constitution to deal with the potential problem.
Yes, and I don't think it's right to be able to completely deny due process. That's too dangerous. It can be abused and it had been. The Constitution is amendable, that should be enough. If the situation warrants it, the country could amend the Constitution to temporarily change the period of detention prior to trial regarding the insurgents.

Quote:
After all, they saw the Whiskey Rebellion in their own day so they had experience with just such a situation.
Yeah, and they were a bunch of bastards for formenting and crushing it.

Quote:
According to the north, they weren't POW's, they were rebels, insurgents, American citizens who were violating the law. So, how in the hell could northern courts give every Confederate soldier, sympathiser, hell, just about every southernor excluding slaves, a trial with due process? You wanted an extreme situation and I gave you one - a somewhat popular rebellion.
Again, I don't see why trials are impossible. They would be somewhat delayed, true, But if the US had the ability to organize PoW camps, I don't see why it wouldn't have the ability to organize trials eventually. And their status as citizens is irrelevent as I think due process should always apply.

As for sympathizers or other noncombatants, they shouldn't have been locked up.
__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Ramo is offline  
Old March 14, 2003, 06:03   #44
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Ramo -
Quote:
Yes, and I don't think it's right to be able to completely deny due process.
Right or wrong, the Framers disagreed.

Quote:
That's too dangerous. It can be abused and it had been.
You haven't provided a viable alternative.

Quote:
The Constitution is amendable, that should be enough.
Yup, and suspending habeus corpus is in the Constitution so changing that requires an amendment.

Quote:
If the situation warrants it, the country could amend the Constitution to temporarily change the period of detention prior to trial regarding the insurgents.
I suppose the Framers believed the country would be pre-occupied with the situation to waste time trying to amend the Constitution.

Quote:
Again, I don't see why trials are impossible. They would be somewhat delayed, true, But if the US had the ability to organize PoW camps, I don't see why it wouldn't have the ability to organize trials eventually.
Millions of trials? Taking a POW is not the same as trying him in a court of law with witnesses, jurors, court officals, etc...

Quote:
And their status as citizens is irrelevent as I think due process should always apply.
So we should have tried every Axis soldier too?

Quote:
As for sympathizers or other noncombatants, they shouldn't have been locked up.
Why not, they were guilty of "treason" too by giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Why prosecute only the soldiers and not the people who hired and sent the soldiers?
Berzerker is offline  
Old March 14, 2003, 06:30   #45
Ramo
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Ramo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Fear and Oil
Posts: 5,892
Quote:
Right or wrong, the Framers disagreed.
Well yeah, isn't that the whole basis of the argument?

Quote:
Yup, and suspending habeus corpus is in the Constitution so changing that requires an amendment.
Umm.. yes. That's why I brought up that this was an error in the Constitution.

Quote:
I suppose the Framers believed the country would be pre-occupied with the situation to waste time trying to amend the Constitution.
What else would the government do? Raise taxes, draft people? Better this, IMO. If the situation warrants it, the change in the Constitution would have overwhelming popular support.

Quote:
Millions of trials? Taking a POW is not the same as trying him in a court of law with witnesses, jurors, court officals, etc...
Use the army infrastructure... We should have made the effort wherever possible.

Quote:
So we should have tried every Axis soldier too?
Yep, at least we should have tried to. As long as the war didn't end first.

Quote:
Why not, they were guilty of "treason" too by giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Why prosecute only the soldiers and not the people who hired and sent the soldiers?
I don't accept the legitimacy of the treason charge. I think there should be a charge so that PoW's can be detained up to the remainder of the war (if necessary).
__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Ramo is offline  
Old March 14, 2003, 07:35   #46
HershOstropoler
Settler
 
Local Time: 22:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally posted by Sikander

It's certainly much simpler than any other sort of law. All I have to do is read a few pages to get the idea behind the law, rather than volumes of common law.
Simpler for the rough idea. But its inherent ambiguity can make it very complicated on specific issues.

"I find that the vast majority of the time a good decision by a lower court ends up prevailing in the end, which is why I am willing to put my money down."

Yes, it raises the chances. But then it's a politically charged case. I just have very little confidence in this SC to make a political stand against this administration.

But maybe the extreme asscrawling in Bush v Gore is not a general rule.
__________________
“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)
HershOstropoler is offline  
Old March 14, 2003, 08:30   #47
Sikander
King
 
Sikander's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Posts: 1,417
Quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler

Simpler for the rough idea. But its inherent ambiguity can make it very complicated on specific issues.
Fortunately I don't generally deal with the law at that level. I am enough of an amateur lawyer to guess with a decent probability what sort of defense a lawyer might use, or how the SC is going to rule on a given set of cases.

Quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"I find that the vast majority of the time a good decision by a lower court ends up prevailing in the end, which is why I am willing to put my money down."

Yes, it raises the chances. But then it's a politically charged case. I just have very little confidence in this SC to make a political stand against this administration.

But maybe the extreme asscrawling in Bush v Gore is not a general rule.
Why would they need to make a political stand? Bush owes them, not vice versa. They gave him the presidency, and he didn't appoint a single one of them. Most importantly the law is on their side in regards to this case. In comparison to the election mess, this case also seems to be fairly simple. Finally, there is no reason why they even have to take the case if they don't want to deal with Bush and company.

My only worry is that the court has been no friend to the various protections from unreasonable search and seizure. Bryer tends to line up with the conservative block a lot here for some reason. But this case has so many connections to core constitutional issues that it will probably be upheld for several reasons, depending on which Justice you ask.
__________________
He's got the Midas touch.
But he touched it too much!
Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!
Sikander is offline  
Old March 14, 2003, 09:38   #48
HershOstropoler
Settler
 
Local Time: 22:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 0
"They gave him the presidency"

I do not think that's the case, but if so, why would they do it? The interpretation they used is absurd.

"My only worry is that the court has been no friend to the various protections from unreasonable search and seizure."

Seeing how far the police state has grown, I can't have faith in this court. It is easy to cook up some "war"-related excuse.
__________________
“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)
HershOstropoler is offline  
Old March 14, 2003, 09:39   #49
chequita guevara
ACDG The Human HiveDiplomacyApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
chequita guevara's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Fort LOLderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Posts: 9,091
This isn't the first ruling of this kind. Last year the courts ordered that Padilla be allowed to see his lawyer, and the government refused. Just as it has refused court orders to release transcripts of its energy policy meetings. In the 1980s, a suspected Irish Republican terrorist was held illegally by the US government for well over a decade, despite courts repeatedly ordering the US government to release him into the US (and not deport him).

When the Administration refuses to listen to the courts, what do we do?
__________________
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
chequita guevara is offline  
Old March 14, 2003, 09:42   #50
chequita guevara
ACDG The Human HiveDiplomacyApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
chequita guevara's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Fort LOLderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Posts: 9,091
Quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Wartime and rebellion allow for suspending habeus corpus.
Bush hasn't suspended habeus corpus, so this is a moot point.
__________________
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
chequita guevara is offline  
Old March 14, 2003, 16:19   #51
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Quote:
When the Administration refuses to listen to the courts, what do we do?
Nothing. The executive has that right.
__________________
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 14, 2003, 17:40   #52
HershOstropoler
Settler
 
Local Time: 22:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 0
Since when?
__________________
“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)
HershOstropoler is offline  
Old March 14, 2003, 17:42   #53
DinoDoc
Civilization II Democracy GameApolytoners Hall of Fame
Deity
 
DinoDoc's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Underwater no one can hear sharks scream
Posts: 11,096
Quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Since when?
Since Jackson uttered the words "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.".
DinoDoc is offline  
Old March 14, 2003, 17:51   #54
HershOstropoler
Settler
 
Local Time: 22:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 0
Which is descriptive, not normative.
__________________
“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)
HershOstropoler is offline  
Old March 14, 2003, 17:54   #55
MichaeltheGreat
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Apolyton Grand Executioner
 
MichaeltheGreat's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Fenway Pahk
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
This isn't the first ruling of this kind. Last year the courts ordered that Padilla be allowed to see his lawyer, and the government refused.
Refused subject to litigation on the issue, which has ended unless the government wishes to appeal.

Quote:
Just as it has refused court orders to release transcripts of its energy policy meetings.
That was appealed and overruled, on (correct) grounds of Executive Privilege.

Quote:
In the 1980s, a suspected Irish Republican terrorist was held illegally by the US government for well over a decade, despite courts repeatedly ordering the US government to release him into the US (and not deport him).
Case? People can be held pending appeals, unless bail is set - and in certain immigration and extradition cases, bail need not be set.

Quote:
When the Administration refuses to listen to the courts, what do we do?
Cite the officials involved for contempt of court, and imprison them for up to two years on each count. And impeach, since contempt of court is falls within the standard for high crimes and misdemeanors. Nixon backed down with SCOTUS, and if the government outright defies the FDC on this matter (as opposed to legally filing appeals) , it will have no sympathy anywhere in the judicial system to a challenge of judicial branch authority.
__________________
Bush-Cheney 2008. What's another amendment between friends?
*******
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all.
MichaeltheGreat is offline  
Old March 14, 2003, 18:38   #56
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Quote:
And impeach, since contempt of court is falls within the standard for high crimes and misdemeanors.
The President won't be impeached for not following the court when dealing with someone like Padilla or IRA members.

As DD said, Jackson has showed the precedent that the executive branch enforces the laws and the judiciary can't make it do anything by itself.
__________________
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 14, 2003, 19:00   #57
HershOstropoler
Settler
 
Local Time: 22:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 0
So the rule of law has been dead since Jackson's days?
__________________
“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)
HershOstropoler is offline  
Old March 14, 2003, 19:07   #58
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
chegitz -
Quote:
Bush hasn't suspended habeus corpus, so this is a moot point.
Tell that to Jose Padilla.

Ramo -
Quote:
What else would the government do? Raise taxes, draft people? Better this, IMO. If the situation warrants it, the change in the Constitution would have overwhelming popular support.
Like I said, the government and the people would be pre-occupied with the situation and wouldn't need another lengthy legal process to deal with. We are invaded and you want everyone to try and amend the Constitution before denying the invaders due process?

Quote:
Use the army infrastructure... We should have made the effort wherever possible.
Oh, you mean like Bush wants to do with military tribunals? Look at the population for the South and North during the Civil War before suggesting the effort was even feasible.

Quote:
Yep, at least we should have tried to. As long as the war didn't end first.
Why? Trying millions of Axis soldiers during WWII would have tied up our infrastructure at a time we were fighting for our lives.

Quote:
I don't accept the legitimacy of the treason charge. I think there should be a charge so that PoW's can be detained up to the remainder of the war (if necessary).
Neither do I, which is why I put "treason" in quotes, but you didn't respond to my charge that southernors who supported the rebellion were just as "guilty" as the soldiers. But these POW's, wouldn't you have to convict them first before detaining them for the remainder of the war?
Berzerker is offline  
Old March 14, 2003, 19:45   #59
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Quote:
So the rule of law has been dead since Jackson's days?
Only if Congress doesn't have a backbone... oh wait, when is the last time they had a backbone .

Usually Presidents are wary to do this because it is a PR nightmare.
__________________
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 15, 2003, 05:31   #60
HershOstropoler
Settler
 
Local Time: 22:28
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 0
Like Truman's steel industry nationalisation ?
__________________
“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)
HershOstropoler is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 17:28.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team