It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Sandra Day O'Connor Fears U.S. Dictatorship

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Be on guard against perils of dictatorship

Because the U.S. "mainstream media" had virtually no coverage that I've been able to identify (recordings of the speech were not allowed), most Americans who missed Totenberg's eye-witness account the next day had no notion of O'Connor's admonition for her compatriots to be on guard against "dictatorship."

In the fevered atmosphere of a presidency waging war against terrorism with modest regard, if any at all, for the constraints of the Bill of Rights, and a Congress affirming pretty much whatever the president wants other than Dubai operation of the nation's key seaports, the warning against dictatorship in 2006 by a retired Supreme Court justice would appear to be newsworthy.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Documentary: America: From Freedom to Fascism -official website

From Freedom to Fascism, Continues Popular National Tidal Wave for New Documentary

The film makes several powerful suggestions for action that Ashland viewers cheered for, including not to accept a national ID chip or card, and to vote for representatives that will sign an affidavit to question and possibly extinguish the Federal Reserve System. The film leaves our bi-partisan viewers with the suggestion to stop being good democrats and good republicans, and join together.

As Aaron Russo’s documentary, America: From Freedom to Fascism, circulates throughout the country, overflowing auditoriums and receiving standing ovations, our fingers and many others’ are crossed in the hope that Russo’s film will actually screen in a theatre near you.


Bush Camp: Sheople or Jackal?


Bush sheople will remain subservient and willfully stupid irregardless of facts,
even to the point of being thrown on the barbeque and served up with mint jelly.


Bush jackals are deceptive, dishonest, malevolent, and harboring hatred
for their country in order to support private agendas over the public good.


Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand
by the president or any other public official.
~Theodore Roosevelt

Poll: Bush approval at 33 percent -Washington Times




posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
You know, if this isnt a dictatorship, i dont know what is..... You need to approach it simply by all the actions leading to this problem. Never mind International Laws, etc. Take a look at all the stories and see for yourself.
I dont know how some can still be so blind.....
I just cant understand some of you.

People, i know what a dictatorship is...How it begins...this has all the earmarks....Contrary to what Muaddib says, i was old enough in my country when i left to remember the anguish, and hurt to have no rights is something i will never forget.

Y'all better wake up. Its happening because we as a people are allowing it to happen.

I never dreamed people in the USA could be so dumb. You may quote me on that one.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
remember the Coup of 1934, the Kennedy assassination, the attempted Carter assassination, the attempted Reagan assassination. These are all attempts at coups, who's to know which one's have succeeded. One thing that all of these events have in common is the name BUSH. That's a little fishy to me.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
Came across the following law.com article which I think is relevant to this discussion (if not the thread itself!).

Justice Ginsburg Says Death Threat Fueled by Dispute Over International Law

Already covered in the first couple of pages of this thread.



International and multinational charters and courts "today play a prominent part in our world," Ginsburg said. "The U.S. judicial system will be poorer ... if we do not both share our experience with, and learn from, legal systems with values and a commitment to democracy similar to our own."

Citing criticisms of the practice by Justice Antonin Scalia and 7th Circuit appeals Judge Richard Posner, Ginsburg cautioned that "Foreign opinions are not authoritative; they set no binding precedent for the U.S. judge. But they can add to the store of knowledge relevant to the solution of trying questions.

Read what she said.

Foreign opinions are not authoritative; they set no binding precedent for the U.S. judge.

Duh.


But they can add to the store of knowledge relevant to the solution of trying questions

Why is she stating the obvious? Why can't everyone here see that that is the crux of this tedious argument?

If, in the course of my education, I read a treatise on how a certain social problem was handled by the courts in a foreign country, how can I not be influenced by it when I make my own decision on a similar problem? Am I supposed to un-learn certain parts of my memory?




Finally,


Ginsburg chose South Africa to discuss the issue at length, in part because that country's 1996 constitution states that when interpreting its bill of rights, courts "must consider international law; and may consider foreign law."


I think that's a very telling constitutional provision, because it sums up the role of international and foreign law in our own (US) legal system, as well as that of many others. International law must be considered, and foreign law may. These are symptoms of a functioning and healthy legal system.

Notice the words must, which is applied to laws between nations, and may, which is the use of foreign cases as a reference.

As stated above, it is impossible to un-learn something which may influence your decision. But the caution should be that our courts should not use foreign law as a precedent when making a decision. And furthermore, use of foreign cases as a reference should be used very sparingly, imo, because of the very striking cultural differences between the US and the rest of the world.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
And furthermore, use of foreign cases as a reference should be used very sparingly, imo, because of the very striking cultural differences between the US and the rest of the world.


Your a little late to be talking about foreign cases being used sparingly


The Republic by Plato
Aristotle's Political Theory



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Once again, your conclusory statements have no basis in fact or history. Where is your evidence that consideration by the judiciary of foreign decisions is expressly prohibited by the Constitution? Show me the exact words in the Constitution that tell the Judicial Branch how they must conduct the exercise of "interpretation."


Humm, you would surely like people to forget the facts under which the Independence of the United States was declared....wouldn't you?.....

I guess for you when the forefathers mentioned in the Declaration of Independence that one of the reasons why they were signing the document....to declare independence was not because the King of Great Britain had combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: .............

Let me excerpt again what the declaration of Independence says about "being subject to foreign jurisdictions, unacknowledge by our laws"...


He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:


Excerpted from.
www.ushistory.org...

Do notice that it says they were being subjected to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution..... which is exactly what O'Connors and other judges like her have been doing.


Originally posted by loam

Here is Article III.


Humm.... Let's excerpt in here, for all to see what section II says...


Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


Excerpted from.
www.law.cornell.edu...


Arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States........ you actually think that means arising under the Constitution of other countries?..... and you want to talk about innacuracies?.... please...you obviously did not know what was written in the Declaration of Independence.... You obviously did not read that link you gave either, but you are trying to use them, without giving any excerpts perhaps thinking most members will not bother to read what the links say, to twist what these documents say.... Decisions by any branch of the government, as they pertain to our laws shall be made in accordance to our Constitution...

I know there are people that want the Constitution of the United States to be void and to have us, slowly being subject to the laws and decisions reached by other countries by the interpretation of their own Constitutions...

These people are forgetting that the United States is an Independent country, not to be subject by the laws and decision reached in any foreign government... but these same people would try to make others think differently...they will try to claim "dictatroship" when a law is enacted which reaffirms the Independence of our courts and the United States.....

It is a sad day indeed when some people would try to erase the truth, that the United States is an independent country not subject to the laws and decisions made by foreign courts, "persuasively" or in any other manner.....



Originally posted by loam
You speak of our "forefathers", but inaccurately identify the respect they held for the judiciary's plenary powers of interpretation. Here's what HAMILTON had to say:


You are really trying hard...aren't you?....




...

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body...


A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.... Why did you not put in bold that part?.... ah, it does not corroborate your story....humm....


Originally posted by loam
But you think Congress has a right to tell the Judiciary how to do their job?


What is the job of the legislative branch of the government?.... to make the law....which is exactly what they did, make a law reaffirming the independence of our country, and our Constitution....



Originally posted by loam
The problem here, Mauddib, is that you are complaining about a "problem" that doesn't exist. No court in the United States says we are subordinate to foreign decisions...Not a single one.


Ohh...i see...so just in case your little "twisting of the truth" does no work, you are also now proclaiming "the problem doesn't exist.... humm...

The judiciary has to interpret the law according to our Constitution, that of the United States of America.... there are judges that are "persuasively" interpreting the law in accordance to the Constitution of other countries, by the decisions reached in the courts of other countries...yet you claim the problem does not exist?.....




Originally posted by loam
The real issue is that some, in an effort to impose their own political agenda, seek to invalidate the independent judgment of the judiciary by hobbling its Constitutionally granted interpretive role.

What you advocate is repugnant to the Constitution. Plain and simple.
[edit on 18-3-2006 by loam]


My own political agenda?.... Really? Since when is the interpretation of the law in accordance to our Constitution a bad political agenda?... ....

You make it sound like it is a bad thing trying to reaffirm our independence.... "Oh no...people are remembering that we are an independent country....we can't allow that".....right loam?.....

tsk, tsk....someone was saying something about "twisting words".... The judiciary does interpret the law, but they are to do so interpreting our Constitution...not the Constitution of France...or Zimbawe...countries that have their own courts which reach their own decisions according to their Constitutions... Who knows.... maybe they are also allowing their courts to reach decisions by what the Constitution of other countries say.... Should the United States do the same?.... no imo, that was not why the United States was made an independent country.

What I advocate are the very foundations under which the united States of America was declared an independent country, with it's own Constitution, with it's own laws.... nothing more, and nothing less.

What I find repugnant is that which you are trying to advocate....

Hurry loam...people are starting to remember once more we are an independent country...you got to do something to stop them.... :@@

[edit on 19-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by jsobecky
And furthermore, use of foreign cases as a reference should be used very sparingly, imo, because of the very striking cultural differences between the US and the rest of the world.


Your a little late to be talking about foreign cases being used sparingly


The Republic by Plato
Aristotle's Political Theory

Your first link doesn't work, and the second one doesn't say anything about internet privacy or abortion or capital punishment. You know, case law.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Your first link doesn't work, and the second one doesn't say anything about internet privacy or abortion or capital punishment. You know, case law.


And what has that got to do with the topic at hand?



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I wouldn't pretend to claim that Bush is pure as the driven snow by a long shot. I seriously doubt that anyone not complicit with or members of the NWO has been allowed any where near the Presidency for decades--at least 30 years and some would claim 200 years.

Shrillery Klintoon has publically asserted:

WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THINGS AWAY FROM YOU AND GIVE TO OTHERS FOR THE COMMON GOOD.

Her Marxist Master's thesis is locked up because publishing it would blow her power mongering out of the water.

I figure she aims to be TYRANT IN CHIEF of NORTHAM when the NWO is more formally and overtly in power.

I don't know how much Bush is knowingly complicit, grudgingly complicit, foot-draggingly complicit or what with the goals of the NWO folks. I don't trust his dad any more than I trust Shrillery.

And they have been doing some ugly things vis a vis Israel that I can't imagine God being thrilled with.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the DIMRATS would rush us into the NWO global tyranny government MUCH FASTER than Bush is doing it.

Whatever horrors you folks imagine from Bush, multiply them at least by 10 or 100 if Shrillery and company get any where near the White House again.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by jsobecky
Your first link doesn't work, and the second one doesn't say anything about internet privacy or abortion or capital punishment. You know, case law.


And what has that got to do with the topic at hand?


Intrepid, it is in relation to the US government being influenced by Plato/Soctrates as per greek laws and philosophy i.e. foreign cases.

Jsobecky, I left it vague intentionally just to see what your level of comphrension was and whether you had the ability to encompass a macroview. You have verified my assumptions.


These are from the same site above:
plato.stanford.edu...
plato.stanford.edu...
plato.stanford.edu...
plato.stanford.edu...





- Sandra Day O'Connor Fears U.S. Dictatorship aka Tyranny.




[edit on 19-3-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

- Sandra Day O'Connor Fears U.S. Dictatorship aka Tyranny.
[edit on 19-3-2006 by Regenmacher]


Sandra Day O'Connors claims that we are in the beginnings of a dictatorship because she wants our courts to "persuasively" reach decisions made by the courts of other countries. That is the truth.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by jsobecky
Your first link doesn't work, and the second one doesn't say anything about internet privacy or abortion or capital punishment. You know, case law.


And what has that got to do with the topic at hand?

I'm responding to his reply. About the influence of foreign law on our judicary. You know, the topic that's been kicked around for about two days now.


I notice you didn't ask him what Aristotle or Plato had to do with the topic at hand, intrepid. You're pretty selective, aren't you? But then, we've had this conversation before, haven't we?



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Jsobecky, I left it vague intentionally just to see what your level of comphrension was and whether you had the ability to encompass a macroview. You have verified my assumptions.

Too bad you managed to come across as a pretentious wag, Regenmacher. And that after we were so impressed with the artwork you supplied us with just little while ago.


Btw, an erudite dude such as yourself should know better than to use the term irregardless:



irregardless

SYLLABICATION: ir·re·gard·less
PRONUNCIATION: r-gärdls
ADVERB: Nonstandard Regardless.
ETYMOLOGY: Probably blend of irrespective and regardless.
USAGE NOTE: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir– prefix and –less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
www.bartleby.com...


[edit on 19-3-2006 by jsobecky]

[edit on 19-3-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Regenmacher...I would really like to know how doing photoshop in some pictures corroborates the topic in this story....

BTW, haven't some people been talking about "the government making exagerations"?.....

I wonder how "sensationalist exagerations" helps to corroborate your argument..... unless all you want is for the gullible people to panic. Is that it?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Apologies if I was reposted something already pasted. I thought the first post was about O'Connor's comments, but I may have missed the Ginsburg ones.


Originally posted by jsobecky

Why is she stating the obvious? Why can't everyone here see that that is the crux of this tedious argument?

If, in the course of my education, I read a treatise on how a certain social problem was handled by the courts in a foreign country, how can I not be influenced by it when I make my own decision on a similar problem? Am I supposed to un-learn certain parts of my memory?



Agreed. I don't know if you read my post after the one you are quoting, but I tried to make a somewhat similar point.) It is the obvious being stated... which is why I don't understand the fuss certain people and certain parts of Congress have been making about it. To me this is a half-rate political issue, made all the more vile by the fact that the Congressmen who are pushing it have at least as much sense as to understand this (ie, your comment above), but also in many cases have a background in law and know well what the rationale is behind referring to foreign law at times in decisions.



Notice the words must, which is applied to laws between nations, and may, which is the use of foreign cases as a reference.

As stated above, it is impossible to un-learn something which may influence your decision. But the caution should be that our courts should not use foreign law as a precedent when making a decision. And furthermore, use of foreign cases as a reference should be used very sparingly, imo, because of the very striking cultural differences between the US and the rest of the world.


Again, I agree. No one ever tried to use foreign law as precedent, or claimed that that would even be an acceptable thing to do. What certain members of Congress would like is for judges to somehow put magical blinders on that prevent them from acknowledging the rest of the world when making a decision- something clearly impossible no matter how you look at it, which leads me to believe this issue is one of those "fake issues" I referred to earlier in this thread, to get people angry and divert their attention for a while .


And indeed, in 99.999% of the cases, the issue is irrelevant for one reason or another.

(But, to answer your question earlier (which I missed before), I suppose I don't really believe it's just the right that use such tactics, but I see it coming from that direction quite a lot these days.)




[edit on 20-3-2006 by koji_K]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Btw, an erudite dude such as yourself should know better than to use the term irregardless:



Bushisms - Adventures in George W. Bushspeak
You mean "know better" as in Bush sheople are groomed towards non-standard communication?

Irregardless, maybe you should stick to the topic rather than attempting to play grammar gestapo,
considering G Dumbya Bush butchers the King's english.

Now back to the bat channel:
Editorial: Let judiciary do its job



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
One of the reason our country was founded was to get away from the accumulation of too much power by of one person or group.

The truth is that the biggest threat to Democracy is when a president or the political leaders of a country accumulate to much power.

In countries like the US has always been that fear of giving to much power to one branch or the other and that is why balances most be preserve to ensure that the powers that will put in danger our country will be restrain.

But in the past few years the balance including our own supreme court has been shifted into one group.

As today we have not balances in our nation and that is a fact.

Our founder fathers even went through everything they could to made sure that fear will never rule the people because that would be the greatest enemy to democracy.

We should never forget that no matter How much promises of safety, security and comfort we are offer by the people that govern us they are also sucesstible to the temptation of power.

Never before in history our country has been face with a danger to our own freedoms and what the constitution gives us as a security for those freedoms.

Bush under the Declaration of a his war that is nothing but against an ideology has given himself the authority to justify taking and challenging our own constitutional laws for his own benefit.

Yes a group of Terrorist came to the US and did an attack, but it was not a country the one that did it, just a group.

So a declaration of a war was done to an ideology and under that declaration of war he can do what he feels like it to do.

If that is not the beginnings of a dictatorship them what it is.

What many fail to see is that in Bush new role as the Commanding in chief in thime of war he considers himself no longer under the rules of the legals opinions of the judiciary branch.

Because he is at war, and under war he can accumulate the power that our forefathers were trying to avoid when they created the checks and balances in our nation.

Weakening the supreme court will only become the final step towards a dictatorship.




[edit on 20-3-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Oh, hey Regen perhaps you wanted this one to win.



Oh, what do we have here, family resemblance?



Hey, if you would have chosen any other candidates let me know, I am pretty sure i can find some photoshop images of them.....



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
the declaration of independance was written up before there they wrote the constitution, so, umm....just what constitution were they saying the king's policies were running contrary to??



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
One of the reason our country was founded was to get away from the accumulation of too much power by of one person or group.
.................


Marg, what was the main factor for declaring the United States as an independent country?....

What was one of the reasons why the founding fathers wanted to make the United States an independent nation....

What is it that Sandra Day O'Connors wants, otherwise she will claim the U.S. is becoming a dictatorship?....

i am pretty sure I went over all those questions already.

The United States is an independent country and it's courts should not be making decisions based on the laws/Constitution or the decisions that courts in other countries decided on. Plain and simple.




top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join