Old Hippie Posted October 1, 2006 Report Share Posted October 1, 2006 O.k. I am a bit il informed on this topic (well, severel actually). How can the President just make a law? I am under the assumption that certain protocol are (or were?) in place where in both houses had to pass the bill before it could become law...the Supreame court could here arguments as to whether or not the law was constitutional...at least I thought that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elef Posted October 1, 2006 Report Share Posted October 1, 2006 That quote is against the constitution, no law can change the constitution without the full procedure of an amendment. No way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted October 1, 2006 Report Share Posted October 1, 2006 Well, as has been noted before, certain actions can suspend the constitution... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted October 1, 2006 Report Share Posted October 1, 2006 Nice to see our public "servants" taking care of the people so well...NOT!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummigut Posted October 1, 2006 Report Share Posted October 1, 2006 in place where in both houses had to pass the bill before it could become law...the Supreame court could here arguments as to whether or not the law was constitutional...at least I thought that... Yes, after congress passes the bill and the president signs it, then it is law. Then it can be challenge in the courts. The problem is that the law says challenging it is against the law, so you can be jailed just for bringing the lawsuit. Actually, I'd like to see this happen. The field day that the European media would have would be incredible. Unfortunately, I truly doubt it would wake up many americans <> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidel Posted October 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2006 Just to clarify, the bill has already been passed into law. source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidel Posted October 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2006 All Americans, in fact all people in America, now have to live with the following reality: Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of â??illegal enemy combatantâ? in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted. The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret â?? thereâ??s no requirement that this list be published. Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence. Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial. Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable â?? already a contradiction in terms â?? and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses. Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence. Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidel Posted October 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2006 Ok, not yet passed into law. Approved by both houses.. only needs to be signed by Bush some time next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidel Posted October 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2006 A humourous look at the legislation from The Daily Show. http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Habeus-Corpus.mov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted October 5, 2006 Report Share Posted October 5, 2006 Folks sort of forget that Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus. He threw all sorts of folks into military prisons for not supporting his war for the Union, including the mayor of Baltimore and most of the Maryland legislature. Newspapers critical of his government ran the risk of closure, with the editors being arrested. The Lincoln accused conspirators were also tried by a military court martial AFTTER the war had ended and such action was illegal. Maybe Bush has decided that if "Honest Abe" could do it, so can he. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.