Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/13/11 11:27 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Maybe I've overestimated the constitution.... It wouldn't have been the first time.

I wouldn't say you're overestimating it. I see people reading things too literally. Not that it shoudl be read liek a living document, rather the words should be restricted merely to their presence. Saying Congress has the power to engage in "War" but not in "open and declared hostile armed conflict" is much too literal. This logical gap is why courts always look to function over form.

In the 18th century, the word Regulate was understood to mean "to keep regular".
it had not yet evolved into a placeholder for "To control" or "To manipulate at will"

I can't really hop on board with the definition you provided.

Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 3: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 5: "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures" (I do realize I cited this wrong earlier)

Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 14: "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"

The usage of "regulate" and its roots in these three clauses indicate that regulation didn't just mean "to make regular". Look at clause 14. To make rules for the government and to keep land and naval force regular? And clause 3. To keep commerce regular among the states, tribes and foreign nations?

The usage in these three clauses hints at a more modern definition of regulation. I also would point to the usage of the word "regulations" in the constitution as well. ( I am not considering the Amendments as they were written by others, and at a different time.) The use of the word points much more to the "control" form of regulate instead of the "to keep regular" form.

I know that the idea of interpreting the constitution based on 'original intent' is very silly, however when interpreting a legal document you have to accept the social nature of language, and the fact that words had a specific understood meaning that differs from one generation to the next.

I see nothing wrong with originalism. The issue I see with originalism is that those who use it the most tend to twist it just as much as the living document people so long as it fits their needs. (See Scalia's majority in DC v. Heller)

At 10/13/11 11:46 PM, Proteas wrote:

The AUMF openly allowed the President to engage in open and armed conflict with Al Qaeda which had openly declared war of the US.

And the AUMF is not above the law, however, seeing as how it's been knocked on it's ass when it came to the military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay Cuba and domestic spying. It would stand to reason that if al-Awlaki's father had challenged it in open court instead of petitioning the President and Amnesty International, his son might be in custody right now instead of spread all over a crater.
But allowing the President the right to indiscriminately murder a U.S. Citizen IS right?

I remember when this was launched 10 years ago.
IT was very specific, & unless this American citizen was involved with the planning of the 9/11 attacks. then this doesn't apply. As you've mentioned Proteas, there have been various government organizations who have twisted the powers given the President to suit there own ends. Making them IMO just as much criminals as those they say they are keeping you safe from .
also no where in there can I find anything saying that Americans can be killed, withut due process. Plus if you take it at face value, one could say that the President could attack inside the USA if he elieved that say, Utah was harbouring a fugitive.
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terroris m/sjres23.es.html

Not only did al Awaki label himself as such, he engaged in hostile actions toward the US.

Making him a traitor to our country, seeing as how he maintained a U.S. Citizenship.

;;;
Making him a traitor, doesn't mean he was involved in the 9/11 incidents & the act , which I just provided a link, is very specific in who & what he can go after.
And if it isn't those who wer einvolved in 9/11. then he has overstepped the resolution.

At 10/14/11 09:09 AM, morefngdbs wrote: http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terroris m/sjres23.es.html

I think you need to re-read the AUMF.

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those ... organizations, ... he determines planned, ... or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, ... in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such ..., organizations ... ."

This does not restrict to "only those specific people who comitted 9/11 and no more." This allows the Executive Brach, i.e. the military, to go after Al Qaeda, the organization that planned and aided the attack, in order to prevent future terrorist attack, which al Awaki has both planned and aided.

This fits WHOLLY within the text of the statute.

At 10/13/11 11:46 PM, Proteas wrote: And the AUMF is not above the law, however, seeing as how it's been knocked on it's ass when it came to the military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay Cuba and domestic spying. It would stand to reason that if al-Awlaki's father had challenged it in open court instead of petitioning the President and Amnesty International, his son might be in custody right now instead of spread all over a crater.

But the tribunals show the very distinction that is at issue here. The instant a party is captured, they have been incapacitated and no longer an emeny soldier. The difference here is that al Awaki was not captured. He was no different than the insurgents who were firing weapons at US soldiers. Just because he had others fire his weapons for him doesn't mean he was not an enemy soldier. The minute he picked up arms against the US under the name of another party with which we arefighting meant he became a soldier and could be attacked and killed as such.

But allowing the President the right to indiscriminately murder a U.S. Citizen IS right?

Indiscriminately? really? The judgement here was based on teh fatc that al Awaki was conducting military operations against the US people. He wasn't just a dissident. he wasn't just a caaptive terrorist. He was actively engaging in attacks on the US.

I really don't like the rpecedent you set here. You're saying that ALL US Citizens, even those who join other armies and then attack the US, should not be killed without due process.

Making him a traitor to our country, seeing as how he maintained a U.S. Citizenship.

He was a traitor the day he joined Al Qaeda. He became an enemy soldier the day he conducted military actions against the US. Had he been captured, then due process would have applied.

At 10/12/11 09:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The AUMF does that. It does everything a declaration of war does without the fanciness of a declaration and the official title of a war.

So it's a law that's been drafted to circumvent the Constitution...which goes back to what more is saying, if you're going to circumvent the document...why even have the document, or try to claim the document is holding any force for you?

At 10/14/11 06:02 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: So it's a law that's been drafted to circumvent the Constitution...which goes back to what more is saying, if you're going to circumvent the document...why even have the document, or try to claim the document is holding any force for you?

They're not circumventing it. They're doing exactly what it allows. Just because they didn't use the word "war" doesn't mean that making a declaration allowing the country to perform the act of war is against the Constitution.

At 10/13/11 11:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

I wouldn't say you're overestimating it. I see people reading things too literally. Not that it shoudl be read liek a living document, rather the words should be restricted merely to their presence. Saying Congress has the power to engage in "War" but not in "open and declared hostile armed conflict" is much too literal. This logical gap is why courts always look to function over form.

Overestimate was meant to mean, overestimate the degree to which the Constitution does not grant the Federal Government unlimited power. Occasionally I have to remind myself that it in fact does.

I can't really hop on board with the definition you provided.

In hindsight 'to control' and 'to keep orderly' can be seen as one in the same thing, and so the distinction from the legal perspective of a megalomaniac isn't really a substantive one.

That said...

Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 3: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

To keep "commerce regular" Remember that under the Articles the Federal Government had no power to stop states from erecting tariffs against one another.

Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 5: "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures" (I do realize I cited this wrong earlier)

This refers to the government setting the ratio of the value of gold to silver, which was what occurred during the period of the "Classical gold standard" During much of its history, the US was on a Bi-metallic gold-silver standard, so the government typically established what the value ratio was between gold and silver. As an aside I am personally not a fan of the classical gold standard and especially not a bi-metallic one, but that is beside the point.

The 'and fix the standard of weights and measures' makes sense if regulating the value of the money is understood in that way, since discussing the value ratios between gold and silver is only meaningful if an agreed upon standard weight and measure.

Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 14: "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"

I see no contradiction here, to 'keep in order' or to 'keep regular'

But Like i said, if the constitution explicitly granted the Government the power to issue what were at the time called 'bills of credit' [referring to irredeemable paper money, not referring to credit itself] I would not support it out of some constitutional ferver.

At 10/13/11 10:07 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/13/11 07:29 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Did the man deserve a trial? Maybe. Was it worth the money to run an opp to capture and bring him back and try it. IMO no, but I suppose he was supposed to have that right.

So Osama was worth sending Seal Team 6 after, but this guy wasn't?

As usual you didn't read what I wrote.

1) Did the man deserve a trial (as a u.s. citizen)? Possibly. If he still was a citizen, yes.
2) Was it worth spending the money to arrest him and bring him to the us to stand trial? No.
3) I said nothing about whether it was worth the money to off him. He was a recruiter for al qaeda. He declared the U.S. as an enemy. There was a bullet with his name on it somewhere.

At 10/13/11 08:50 AM, frigi wrote: With that guy getting killed it might have saved your life later on. You think of that you anti american son of a bitch.

Dude, are you fucking serious? If I may borrow a quote from Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.

I grow so goddamned tired of you flag-waving morons. The facts of this issue are clear: Anwar al-Awlaki was an AMERICAN CITIZEN, assassinated by the U.S. government on grounds that are shaky at best. They say he was a terrorist. Okay, fine. Does that mean we should believe every bit of right-wing propaganda we hear on Fox News?

I think you're a moron, sir. No, I know you're a moron, actually. Due process is the right of EVER AMERICAN CITIZEN, Muslim cleric or not. I'm a liberal, too, so I'm not just some Republican asshole looking for a chance to slander our Democratic president.

Assassination is simply unacceptable. There was no conflict in Yemen, so whoever said that is stupid.

Frigi, you should never be allowed to comment on politics; you don't have the mind for it. Get back in your pickup truck, go bury your dead dog, tune up your banjo and go kick some shit. Redneck fuck!

The Constitution these days is more of an ideal than a concrete series of laws.

Are we doing a shitty job of standing behind it? Yeah. But if we just throw it out, we're giving up on our last hope for a decent country.

Some presidents, politicians, and laws do a better job of following it than others, if we get rid of it, there's no foundation we can even hope to keep our feet on.

Really, the only thing keeping Obama from declaring martial law and destroying all guns is the pretense of the second amendment.

At 10/14/11 06:02 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/12/11 09:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The AUMF does that. It does everything a declaration of war does without the fanciness of a declaration and the official title of a war.

So it's a law that's been drafted to circumvent the Constitution...which goes back to what more is saying, if you're going to circumvent the document...why even have the document, or try to claim the document is holding any force for you?

;;;
Exactly Aviewaskewed
Put it in a museum somewhere & tell people this is where we started from & here we are now with a elected 4 year term, dictator. Who does what they want whenever they want.
Rights be damned.
To the comment about only the second amendment keeping the President from taking guns off the street.
I don't believe that's true.
From my experience here in Canada, watching what has gone on since the long gun registry was introduced 1995, our own Government admitted it was a failure, that less than half of all LEGAL rifles & shotguns were declared & registered by their owners.
I have looked around the net, & the estimates are less than 30 % are registered.
The numbers seem to be skewed,because we have had manditory handgun registration since 1934...& the number of handguns gets added to estimates of long guns.
But I do know you can't find anywhere proof that registering rifles has kept anyone safe.
To the contrary we have evidence of registered guns being used by their owners to bcommit crime !
In the US you would have the same problem. People will not easily give up their possesions, especially their guns.

At 10/13/11 10:36 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Asshole go back to general & lurk for awhile.
That guy is not as big a threat as the drug gangs operating just south of your border, in Mexico.
With the logic of assasination no matter where no matter who
So when are you going to start bombing them ?

Well if I had the power to bomb them, I would. Idiot.

At 10/15/11 09:15 AM, frigi wrote:

At 10/13/11 10:36 AM, morefngdbs wrote: That guy is not as big a threat as the drug gangs operating just south of your border, in Mexico.
With the logic of assasination no matter where no matter who
So when are you going to start bombing them ?

Well if I had the power to bomb them, I would. Idiot.

;;;
Well we sure are lucky the only thing you've got the power over is whether you shit in your pants, or not.
Probably all you can do to keep that little problem figured out everyday.

You certainly aren't posting anything that rebuts my argument that the Constituion of the US is gradually being whittled away & if that continues, you will have none of the rights you used to have.
Assholes, like yourself, are completely oblivious to that FACT, is the reason its happening so quickly

Ben Franklin ( you know one of the guy's responsible for the Declaration of Independance ) said it best
quote- "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temorary safey, deserve neither liberty nor safety . "
The Protect America Act, the Patriot act, the Military Commissions Act.
All of these are taking your liberty & rights as citizens away, & gaining you little or nothing in safety !

So as I said, when I opened this thread, throw away the Constitution...you're no longer being governed under it, much of your freedoms & liberty is now restricted .

So in my opinion...the terrorists have won.
Safety cannot be bought.
You have surrenderd your rights & liberties to a police state & Government . You have chosen to hide behind someone (your President) as if that can somehow insulate all of you from terrorists & other problems.
I call that cowardice,& I'm just calling it as I see it.

I doubt this is the first time a President has killed an American person for some reason before. We have done things like put our own people in forms of concentration caps just because they were oriental. I am sure our government and our presidents have ordered things like killing American people without due process before.

I am not saying it makes it right, I am just saying that this is unlikely the first time, or the last time it will happen.

At 10/14/11 07:34 PM, Camarohusky wrote: They're not circumventing it.

It gives the President the power to declare war. A power the Constitution exclusively granted to Congress. How is that not circumvention?

They're doing exactly what it allows.

Huh?

Just because they didn't use the word "war" doesn't mean that making a declaration allowing the country to perform the act of war is against the Constitution.

Um, yes, yes it is. Because the constitution clearly says that a declaration of war can only come from Congress. By being able to use the term "war" and to try and invoke rules, terms, and actions that would constitute war without the need for congressional approval is absolutely circumventing (or working around) the constitution and it's stipulations. I just don't see how you can say it isn't with a straight face. This has nothing to do with whether it's a good idea or not, I'm speaking purely from what the law is doing in effect.

At 10/15/11 05:15 AM, homor wrote: The Constitution these days is more of an ideal than a concrete series of laws.

So in other words...it doesn't really apply or matter?

Are we doing a shitty job of standing behind it? Yeah. But if we just throw it out, we're giving up on our last hope for a decent country.

So...it's not a concrete series of laws, it's an ideal...we really don't have to follow it...but we should keep it? Are you insane? Either it has the force of law and is the guiding force of the country, or it isn't. If it is, then the government needs to be bound to it and the citizenry need to hold their feet to the fire on it. If it isn't, then yeah, nothing stops the government from just wiping their ass with it, and making any laws they want. You can't really have it both ways.

Some presidents, politicians, and laws do a better job of following it than others, if we get rid of it, there's no foundation we can even hope to keep our feet on.

But if we just accept that some people can follow it, some can choose not to, and there's no accountability...what foundation do we really in truth have? At that point we're all just lying to each other and saying a meaningless document holds meaning.

Really, the only thing keeping Obama from declaring martial law and destroying all guns is the pretense of the second amendment.

Or, maybe it's just the fact that he has no interest in doing those things? He has no legal power to do these things? Any of those?

Honestly, this is one of the most nonsensical posts I've ever seen in this forum. That covers a lot of ground.

At 10/14/11 11:55 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I think you need to re-read the AUMF.

I'm thinking you do too.

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those ... organizations, ... he determines planned, ... or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, ... in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such ..., organizations ... ."

Ok.

This does not restrict to "only those specific people who comitted 9/11 and no more."

Really? Because what you quoted actually seems to be saying just that. That all "necessary and appropriate force" can be used against "those organizations determined to have planned or aided in the terrorist attacks that occured on September 11, 2001". If they weren't trying to create a very specific mandate, why did they mention a very specific attack, and use language that absolutely suggests a limiting in scope to only the individuals and groups involved in those specific attacks?

This allows the Executive Brach, i.e. the military, to go after Al Qaeda, the organization that planned and aided the attack, in order to prevent future terrorist attack, which al Awaki has both planned and aided.

Ok, so you provided a rationale by a bit of six degrees of seperation would seem consistent with the law (of course there's deeper problems that I pointed out). But this does not in actuality prove that the government has unlimited power to attack any terrorist organization by dint of them being a terrorist organization. Since as we established, al qaeda is clearly under the law as they are the primary group responsible in planning and committing the attacks on September 11th, 2001. Got any examples where this law gets applied to individuals or organizations that do NOT have a link to those attacks? That'd better aid the point you are trying to make.

This fits WHOLLY within the text of the statute.

At 10/16/11 01:43 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Really? Because what you quoted actually seems to be saying just that. That all "necessary and appropriate force" can be used against "those organizations determined to have planned or aided in the terrorist attacks that occured on September 11, 2001". If they weren't trying to create a very specific mandate, why did they mention a very specific attack, and use language that absolutely suggests a limiting in scope to only the individuals and groups involved in those specific attacks?

Yeah, it is limited. To organizations that aid, planned, and people that horbored those organizations. The limitation you're looknig for would read more like "Those person who participated in the act through planning." The AUMF authorizes the President to stop future terrorist attacks by attacking the entire structure of these groups, regardless of whether the specific person was involved with 9/11, so long as they are a part of the organization that was.

The language is actually quite broad. I see NOTHING in the AUMF that limits it to even close to as low as yyou are trying to do.

Ok, so you provided a rationale by a bit of six degrees of seperation would seem consistent with the law (of course there's deeper problems that I pointed out).

Six degrees? 9/11 -> Al Qaeda -> al Awaki. That is not six degrees. That's not attenuated by any means of the word.

But this does not in actuality prove that the government has unlimited power to attack any terrorist organization by dint of them being a terrorist organization.

True, and guess what? We haven't.

Since as we established, al qaeda is clearly under the law as they are the primary group responsible in planning and committing the attacks on September 11th, 2001.

al Awaki was Al Qaeda. Therefore he falls under the AUMF.

Got any examples where this law gets applied to individuals or organizations that do NOT have a link to those attacks? That'd better aid the point you are trying to make.

No it wouldn't. It would go completely against the point I am trying to make.

I see people trying to limit the AUMF to the specific people who comitted and aided 9/11. I am saying the statute broadly includes the organizations and anyone involved in it. Al Qaeda, to which al Awaki was a member, is that organization.

At 10/16/11 11:42 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Yeah, it is limited. To organizations that aid, planned, and people that horbored those organizations. The limitation you're looknig for would read more like "Those person who participated in the act through planning." The AUMF authorizes the President to stop future terrorist attacks by attacking the entire structure of these groups, regardless of whether the specific person was involved with 9/11, so long as they are a part of the organization that was.

So...you seem to be agreeing with what I was saying then that under the AUMF, you could justify Al Alwaki because he was a part of Al Qaieda, Al Qaieda planned and perpetrated 9/11. Thus Al Qaieda and it's members are targets under the idea of the law.

The language is actually quite broad.

Not from the links I'm reading that you and more provided. It appears to actually be quite specific.

I see NOTHING in the AUMF that limits it to even close to as low as yyou are trying to do.

Really? Did you actually read it? Because the language very clearly mentions that the mandate is specific to those involved with a specific attack. Maybe you need to work on the reading comprehension a bit?

Six degrees? 9/11 -> Al Qaeda -> al Awaki. That is not six degrees. That's not attenuated by any means of the word.

Ok, 3. My bad :)

True, and guess what? We haven't.

Suddenly I'm thinking we aren't actually disagreeing about what the law says...just whether or not it's constitutionally justifiable...

I see people trying to limit the AUMF to the specific people who comitted and aided 9/11. I am saying the statute broadly includes the organizations and anyone involved in it. Al Qaeda, to which al Awaki was a member, is that organization.

Yeah, now I'm positive I misunderstood what you were representing it to be. I thought you were trying to say it gave broad power to a general action against terrorism in general.

Of course, I still think it's a constitutionally tricky situation, especially if we're going to keep throwing the word "war" around, and using terms that apply to war time situations.

At 10/17/11 03:22 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Yeah, now I'm positive I misunderstood what you were representing it to be. I thought you were trying to say it gave broad power to a general action against terrorism in general.

Just to clarify, here's what I think the bounds of the AUMF are:
Any direct person-participants, regardless of group or nation,
The whole of Al Qaeda,
Any nation that openly held and support(ed/s can be debated) Al Qaeda,
A couple other outliers who were otherwise involved.

So far, the biggest issue of boundaries is the third category. Who harbored and supported, and when does it count? In other words, Afghanistan only, or Pakistan too?

Of course, I still think it's a constitutionally tricky situation, especially if we're going to keep throwing the word "war" around, and using terms that apply to war time situations.

Tricky,most definitely. Sadly, when you have a fairly black and white document trying to fit into a world of grays, 'tricky' pops up quite often, but it doesn't mean it's wrong.

At 10/17/11 03:22 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Suddenly I'm thinking we aren't actually disagreeing about what the law says...just whether or not it's constitutionally justifiable...

;;;
I don't believe it is justifiable.
The Constitution of the US , isn't a set of guidelines.
I can find nowhere int hat document, anything that says " The President can do what he wants when he wants."
or that the Judiciary can change laws & how they are applied on a whim.
Nor is there anything that says that Congress , doens't have to deal with its responsibilities, because its a burden.

Writing policy to circumvent the Constitution of the US, is why I wrote this thread. If its no longer relevant, & if 'some of it isn't relevant' , than all of it is IMO suspect ,then get rid of it. Stop trying to fool the American people & yourselves with the deception that is a present day reality, with the President acting like a murderous dictator.
If that's what you are living under, & you presently are, then have the decency to say so.
Don't form a police force that doesn't have to obey the laws on illegal search & seizure, on illegal wiretaps, just tell everyone big brothers keeping you safe & we know what's good for you , so shut up or we will kill you & your family.
Call a spade a spade & stop trying to hide behind Bullshit 'legal' language & twisting the law by getting another 'opinion or ruling' on it !

As its spelled out in the Constitution, worked fine before the Bush's deciding to declare a war on terror !
I also find it funny that Saudi Arabia, which is a huge contributor to the terrorists including Al Qaeda as well as the Taaliban, has never been targeted by the Bush's (would you target the country your family's done over 2 billion dollars in business with ????) nor by Obama...but that is no secret.

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/12/
06/saudi-arabia-and-other-gulf-states-fu nd-al-qaeda-and-taliban.html

At 10/17/11 11:00 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Tricky,most definitely. Sadly, when you have a fairly black and white document trying to fit into a world of grays, 'tricky' pops up quite often, but it doesn't mean it's wrong.

Except it's not meant to be a "black and white document". The Founders were smart enough to realize a document they drafted in 1776 to govern with might not be applicable in 1996...hell, they probably thought there might be issues even sooner, within their own lifetime. Which is why they made it so the Constitution could be CHANGED. That it could be amended and set out a procedure by which to do so. A procedure that due to expediency and (what I feel anyway) is the frankly trumped up terrorism threat that they decided "well, sometimes we just need to be able to do whatever seems appropriate at the time". Well, if that's the style of government we're going in for, then why have a Constitution? Why even act like we're bound to anything and just admit that the Republic is in name only, and at any time the President feels it's expedient he can just take over and do whatever he thinks is best.

Either it has value and we follow it, or it doesn't and we don't. That is a black and white issue, and it's the good and easy kind of black and white issue. Just because an issue is black and white, doesn't make it wrong. To kind of steal one from you :)

At 10/21/11 10:05 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Except it's not meant to be a "black and white document". The Founders were smart enough to realize a document they drafted in 1776 to govern with might not be applicable in 1996...hell, they probably thought there might be issues even sooner, within their own lifetime. Which is why they made it so the Constitution could be CHANGED. That it could be amended and set out a procedure by which to do so.

This seems to be an argument that the unamended text of the Constitution is actually black and white.

At 10/21/11 10:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote: This seems to be an argument that the unamended text of the Constitution is actually black and white.

This seems to be a rather lazy attempt to continue to insist black and white is bad...but not actually tell me why black and white is bad, or what the real flaws of the Constitution are. Especially in the face of it being an amendable document.

At 10/16/11 01:29 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/15/11 05:15 AM, homor wrote: The Constitution these days is more of an ideal than a concrete series of laws.

So in other words...it doesn't really apply or matter?

;;
Just a bit more PROOF, that it doesn't apply any more.
& apparently Americans don't care...so it doesn't matter !

http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold -silver-TSA-Thugs-on-the-Loose%20.aspx?l angue=en&article=3672687618G10020

At 10/21/11 10:47 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: This seems to be a rather lazy attempt to continue to insist black and white is bad...but not actually tell me why black and white is bad, or what the real flaws of the Constitution are. Especially in the face of it being an amendable document.

Black and white to the most minute detail is bad. The Amendment system is far too complex to be applied to every little case of interpretation. While black and white to an extent is quite helpful, as it provides clarity to the rules so they are just pretty fluff, but too restrictive doesn't give any wiggle room at all. With a language and dialect as open and squishy as ours, restricting the document too much actually causes problems. Words have multiple meanings and numerous meaning have multiple words associated with them. The document needs to be flexible enough to at the very least survive the quirks of the English language.

At 10/25/11 10:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Black and white to the most minute detail is bad.

Agreed, good thing the Constitution doesn't do that.

The Amendment system is far too complex to be applied to every little case of interpretation.

Giving the President the power to make war and order broad military action without the approval of Congress seems like more then "a little case of interpretation" to me.

The document needs to be flexible enough to at the very least survive the quirks of the English language.

Almost 300 years in, I'd say it did that.

Still waiting for real reasons then.

At 10/26/11 03:42 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Still waiting for real reasons then.

;;;
You'll be waiting a long time Aviewaskewed.

The comment you made previously about the trumped up BS which is the so called terrorist excuse to 'protect' Americans.
Well if the American Government is so concerned with protecting Americans.

Why is the automobile so easy to obtain & operate ?
those killed on 9/11 in New York (can't get a straight answer anywhere !)
3478 reported on 30/10/2001
2792 revised number 3/8/2003
As an example of deaths lets go with the bigger number.
Killed in Iraq, 3490 in actual combat...4412 as of Sept 11 /2011.
Afghanistan dead 1719 is the largest number I could find.
So you got;
9/11 -3478
Irag -4412
Afg - 1719
TOTAL - 9609, lets round it up to an even 10,000 dead Americans (in case I missed any & add 20 % for mistake margine)So let us say 12,000 DEAD fighting the WAR on Terror in the last 10 years.

Yet in the USA in 2010 32,708 Americans were killed by Automobiles in the USA ! A record LOW year by the way, down from 2009's 33,808 killed ! ! !
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/01/u-s-d -o-t-says-2010-traffic-fatalities-lowest -theyve-ever-bee/

Yet here I show you more than 66,000 dead Americans , killed in the country in 2 years.
Yet you scream about all the restrictions on your LIBERTY "BEING NECESSARY" TO PROTECT YOU FROM TERRORISM !
THat Your President NEEDS to use special powers to PROTECT AMERICANS from terrorists.

Well I say your anyone who believes that is fucking brain dead.
You can keep on believing that crock & drinking the Cool-aid withthe rest of the rhetorical chanting assholes in Governemtn who say these restrictions on your liberty, & the disreguard of the US Constitution is needed

I don't even want to bother looking up how many Americans have been killed by the Automobile during the entire 10+ years of the War on terror.
But I know from plain old common sense...you are wasting your resources trying to fight terrorists ... IF THE OFFICIAL STATED REASON is to PROTECT AMERICANS & should instead be use in trying to control the the mass murder that is taking place on your highways & byways.

Can any of you imagine the outcry if 30,000 Americans were killed by terrorists last year ?
You wouldn't be able to open the door to your home (if they even allowed you doors any more) without a cop sniffing your asshole !

Maybe the rest of you can't pry the blinders open that the US Government has covered your eyes with... but some of us can see just fine.

At 10/26/11 03:42 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Giving the President the power to make war and order broad military action without the approval of Congress seems like more then "a little case of interpretation" to me.

When it comes to Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Panama (and so on)? Yeah, sure.

When it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan? Congress expressly authorized both of those military actions. The interpretation comes from whether Congress has to expressly use the word "war" when exercising its power to make war. In other words, is "use of military force" so different for "war" that the AUMFs fall outside of Congress' stated powers?

Still waiting for real reasons then.

I stated the reason well above, and have restated it here. The Constitution cannot functionally be read to distinguish between things like "use of military force" and "war". Otherwise, our system would crumble under the formalities, vagueries, and obsolete references of a 250 year old document.

At 10/26/11 10:37 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I stated the reason well above, and have restated it here.

You stated a reason...perhaps I was unclear in posting that I thought the reason was bad, ludicrous, or otherwise a rather slippery slope justification that basically amounts to justifying ignoring the Constitution and creating powers or abilities for the Executive Branch it was never meant to have?

The Constitution cannot functionally be read to distinguish between things like "use of military force" and "war".

I personally have a hard time with this. Especially because the WAY that force has been used, other then in the cases of Bin Laden (Pakistan kill) and Al Awaki...is in the fashion of war. We attacked and pursued regime change in Afghanistan, clearly a war, Congress approved. Ditto Iraq. I'm just not comfortable with ability for the President to act in a unilateral fashion(not to mention a lot of the other powers that have been granted in the interest of the War at Harror that haven't been as publicized). Not so much because I question the morals or ethics of the President necessarily (I disagree with Bush on his overarching foreign policy objectives...but everything I've heard or read paints a picture of a man who essentially thought he was doing that which was right), but I question the long term consequences and ramifications of these moves. Goes back to how I saw the response to 9/11, and the way I view the eseentials "whys" for it happening. But that's going from justifying my stance here I think, into a completely new subject if I trot all that out.

Otherwise, our system would crumble under the formalities, vagueries, and obsolete references of a 250 year old document.