Federal judges (a district judge and the Supreme Court respectively) have ruled that Bush's wiretapping and military tribunals are both unconstitutional and illegal. So instead of upholding the Constitution as the oath they have sworn requires, the Republican congress seeks to change the laws.
How will you guys rationalize this one? The Constitution is so passe', right? Those are ancient 18th century values, right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Leftists like you have been undermining the Constitution for the last 40 years, so please, spare us the sanctimonious lecture.
I think that this is the way govt ought to work. The legislators are trying to write a law that conforms to the constitution as interpreted by the supreme court justices. It's no different than UM's admission staff wanting to have affirmative action, then when its policies get found unconstitutional, they rewrite them to get the same affect in compliance with the SC's constitutional assessment.
The only way that these legislators would "violate the constitution that they have sworn to uphold" is if they insisted that the executive branch disregard the SC ruling. But they're not doing that. They're rewriting the law aiming for comliance.
Is there a way to write a constitutionally compliant law that permits fedl govt agents to collect all US phone records into a computer to look for tendancies? To warrentlessly wiretap international calls involving one terminus in the US? You might feel that this is both impossible and undesirable. I am unsure on both counts. I certainly object to either of these activities occuring without active oversight from the legislative branch, with disputes resolved by the judiciary.
"Leftists like you have been undermining the Constitution for the last 40 years, so please, spare us the sanctimonious lecture."
When have I undermined the Constitution? By using my free speech?
Fascist!
Rewriting a law that stomps on the very civil liberties upon which this nation is founded is an afront to the very founding fathers that you supposedly hold so dear. We may as well throw out the Bill of Rights and revert to direct fascism, because that is where we are headed.
Inhumane and criminal treatment is still inhumane and criminal even if you rewrite the law to allow it. Owning human beings was wrong even when it was socially acceptable. Torture and invasion of privacy are wrong even if they become socially acceptable.
Here's some ways that I think Six might agree represent lefty undermining of the US Constitution:
1. Affirmative Action.
2. Denial of school vouchers for k-12, but not for college and trade schools.
3. Banning people from voluntarily praying in govt-owned K-12 schools (I don't care about this one, and I reckon that Six probably doesn't either) but not govt-owned colleges.
4. Federal income taxes.
5. Claiming that when rightist clergy (Pat Robertson, but not Jesse Jackson) participate in politics that it "violates the seperation of church and state."
6. Forbidding private citizens from using publically owned facilities for religious displays (unsure about this one).
Here's how I think that the righties have been undermining the sacred US constitution:
1. Attempting to outlaw flag burning.
2. Any of Bush's 911 investigatory tactics that lack congressional oversight.
3. Adopting religious practices as official govt policies (currency with "In god we trust", courthouse personel maintaining paintings of white jesus, bibles, ten commandments, etc.).
The left and right have worked together to underming the genius Constitution in these ways:
1. Banning use of recreational drugs.
2. Banning cellphone use while driving.
Six, you need to address Nadir's challange!
Post a Comment