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: Top U.S. Court Being Asked to Curb Bush's Powers

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Wishful thinking on the part of Bush's opponents here.


Tell us why you think the executive administration, or rather the "White House," should be given such sweeping powers?

This isn't about Bush, this is about consolidation and centralization of power into the hands of a tiny few. Why is this such a grand idea to you?




posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
I think you're being optimistic, shots. I'll say more when I hear it myself.


You should note that the first issue in the case is a jurisdictional one.



I looked for the transcript but the site indicates it might be 10 days before it will be posted. The audio was not on Courttv either
I had hoped to get at least a portion so I could show my points.

Also I was not being optimistic, I was just giving my opinion as I saw it.

What bothered me was the blog seemed to be very one sided even the comments section indicating the blog leans to the left and we all know what the left would say don't we?

I also agree we will have to wait and see.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
I looked for the transcript but the site indicates it might be 10 days before it will be posted. The audio was not on Courttv either
I had hoped to get at least a portion so I could show my points.


Did the same...



Originally posted by shots
Also I was not being optimistic, I was just giving my opinion as I saw it.


Sorry. Didn't mean that the way it reads...



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Nothing is going to happen, the supreme court is in the hands of the present administration.

They will either uphold the standing laws like Grady said, or. . . in a more drastic rule they will uphold Bush definitions of what he define his powers under the war that he has declared on terror.

We have to remember that the war we are fighting as not is an ideology and now a standard type of war.

This one is going to show one and for all as to who the new members and some of the old members serve now.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
This isn't about Bush, this is about consolidation and centralization of power into the hands of a tiny few. Why is this such a grand idea to you?


I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I believe the answer to such questions is held here.

www.abovetopsecret.com.

More succinctly, because the Congress granted those powers.

[edit on 2006/3/28 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
FIVE of the Justices on the Supreme Court are Federalists that buy into the "Unitary Executive" concept. That's part and parcel of the Leo Straussian, Neo-Con strategies that Bush's coterie has sucked into the Federal systems.

I'll bet my money on their upholding his doing anything he thinks he wants to do, just because Federalism says so.

You just watch. Not til summer, eh? That figures. Draw it out; waste this guy's life and so many others' also.

When are we going to get up the courage to "just say no" to dictatorship?

General strike, general boycott, secondary boycott, shut everything down.

That's how European leaders get told what their people want : the people say so, in a way that is undeniable and immediately hits the leaders in their pocketbooks.

So long as we are silent and merely intimidated, this will continue.

Remember in the 60s, how people simply dropped out of the system, walked away from it? That's called passive aggression.

Now, there's an appropriate strategy. Let's go just do for ourselves and leave the leaders holding the bag. Globalists and strategists have no good intentions to convey to any of us, in any case.

Buy no gas, everybody go camping on their friends' properties and leave all your gps' cellphones at home.

Maybe they'll have a harder time, just finding us.

Sigh.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   
That petty little man really needs to have his wings clipped but I wonder even a ruling from the surpreme court would do it. I wonder, I really wonder, if push came to shove, Bush vs. the country and its people and the rule of law, which side the military would come down on. No one least of all me wants to see the military involved in politcs in this country, its a reterorical question. Still, if that weasel (and thats not to say anything bad about weasels) decides to trash "that Goddamned piece of paper", I mean the constituition, (he is reported as referring to it as such) whether congress (:lol
would put party aside (:lol
and stand up to him
or would the military? As a people we are too fat and happy to take to the streets, that is unless they do away with supersize meals, then its getting personal. (thats scarcasim)



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Imagine if Osama was caught and he was to be put on a tribunal and Osama's lawyer or lawyers demand that the case be throw out and the Bush's war powers be curbed because its not fair for Osama. No doubt thats what Osama would dream of.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
deltaboy:

Is that what you think this case is about?


:shk:



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by chaiyah99

When are we going to get up the courage to "just say no" to dictatorship?

General strike, general boycott, secondary boycott, shut everything down.

That's how European leaders get told what their people want : the people say so, in a way that is undeniable and immediately hits the leaders in their pocketbooks.




That simple huh?

General strike, general boycott, secondary boycott, shut everything down?

Hit 'em where it hurts? And don't take no for an answer?

Sounds good to me.




posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
deltaboy:

Is that what you think this case is about?


:shk:


Then what would you do if Osama was caught? How would you put him on trial?
Would it be fair? It has to be an Islamic law instead of a U.S. law right? People be mad you know. After all we are giving a trial of a Muslim person, a foreign person. Is Osama a soldier or a civilian?



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Then what would you do if Osama was caught? How would you put him on trial?


Osama would not be charged with conspiracy there in lies the difference. Just what exact charges would be one can only guess, but aiding and abetting would definitely be one of them.


Originally posted by deltaboy
It has to be an Islamic law instead of a U.S. law right? People be mad you know. After all we are giving a trial of a Muslim person, a foreign person. Is Osama a soldier or a civilian?


Moot points because when a crime is commited in another country you get tried according to their laws not Islamic law.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

[Is Osama a soldier or a civilian?


Therein lies the crux of all the problems the U.S. is having trying to meet out justice to the terrorists. In the case of Osama it seems pretty clear-cut, but for many of the people being held (that were not involved in the 9/11 attacks) the answer is not so readily apparent. Most of them, in fact, did not even commit terrorist acts, they fought coallition troops in one way or another. Are they civilians?, or are they military? The Bush administration has labeled them as "illegal combatants" and says they do not not warrant treatment under the Geneva Conventions of war. Most legal scholars seem to have agreed with the Bush administration on that score. So, they aren't soldiers (in any sense that people have always understood that term). However, they don't appear to be civilians either, at least that is what the Bush administration contends.

Well if they aren't soldiers and they aren't civilians (in the legal meanings of those terms) then what are they and who/what has jurisdiction over them and how do you try them?

If they are civilians then many of them committed crimes, but if they are soldiers then they can't be held personally accountable for most of their actions. The Bush administration has said they fall in between somewhere and is attempting to try them via special military tribunals. The defense lawyers for one of them (Hamdan) has said the tribunals are themselves unconstitutional and have no legal standing to try him (for conspiracy anyway). The current court case is to decide the issue one way or the other--ostensibly--but the court may duck the issue in several different ways or they may deadlock.

This link (provided by Grady) discusses the problem:

www.ccc.nps.navy.mil...

[edit on 29-3-2006 by Astronomer68]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   

by ravenshadow13stupid America, I hate living here.


Are you being forced against your will to leave? If you're too young, does your parents know your sentiments? I'm pretty sure that you should easily find funding to get a first-class-ticket to leave.

Lt.-Cmdr Charles Swift should go ahead and resign his commission from the USN for even thinking about forwarding a preposterous motion.

The scumbag that he's representing is a member of al-Qaeda for Godsake.

Does anyone here who supports this motion have any recollection of what al-Qaeda is and stand for? They're hell-bent on killing Americas mommies, daddies and their children. That's who they are.

BTW, Congress has the power to curtail any powers, that is not granted to him in the constitution, from the president. Since they haven't done so yet, it must mean he doesn't really have any more now than the day he took the presidential oath in 2001.




[edit on 29/3/06 by Intelearthling]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
BTW, Congress has the power to curtail any powers, that is not granted to him in the constitution, from the president. Since they haven't done so yet, it must mean he doesn't really have any more now than the day he took the presidential oath in 2001.


BTW, the Supreme Court has the power to decide on matters of constitutionality and its been that way for a long time.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
BTW, the Supreme Court has the power to decide on matters of constitutionality and its been that way for a long time.


Don't you believe that the Supreme Court would've ruled against President Bush by now if they were to find any of his actions unconstitutional?

Abuse of presidential powers would've been looked into a long time ago if any allegations were true.

What President Bush is doing, no matter how unpopular it is with his opponents, are well within the boundaries of all existing laws. If it were not so, we'd more than likely know about it.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling

Don't you believe that the Supreme Court would've ruled against President Bush by now if they were to find any of his actions unconstitutional?


First, someone has to bring a suit to that effect and take it through the court heirarchy.


Abuse of presidential powers would've been looked into a long time ago if any allegations were true.


I don't know how long it took for this current case to reach the Supreme Court, it could have been in the pipeline for a year or so already. Further, I have no idea how many other cases may be pending or be in litigation at lower levels. There may be, and probably, are several such cases in the pipeline.


What President Bush is doing, no matter how unpopular it is with his opponents, are well within the boundaries of all existing laws. If it were not so, we'd more than likely know about it.


If we knew about it, that knowledge would more than likely have come from the media outlets. Like I said above, I have no idea what is in the judicial pipeline, but I'de be willing to bet there are several cases working their way up the chain. That certainly doesn't mean any of them will be won by Bush's opponents though.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I have to put my 2 cents in here because this is a great issue to help focus on whats important.

I think that we give courts too much credit, and make too big of an assumption that interpretation of the law is going to keep the government in check. This country was not founded on Law so much as it was founded on Principles. Laws can be changed, interpreted, and just ignored, as the case may be. If we forget the principles, we've lost everything.

If we abandon the principle that a person is naturally presumed innocent until proven otherwise, and that then have rights to a fair trial in a timely manor, and not to be held indefinately without cause, we cease to be a free society. why fight any war if we've lost everything that we claim to stand for anyway?

as for the discussion of whether or not bush is allowed to have wartime powers without a declaired state of war.. it is dangerous that we have allowed a president to enter a country into wars without a declaration by congress. The people of this country have NO choice now. do people think that voting out congress members will serve to allow their voices to be heard?

In the good old days, in order for a war to be fought, congress declaired it to be a war, and then sought to fund it by selling war bonds. if americans wanted to support a war, they'd buy the bonds. if they didn't like the war, they certainly wouldn't buy any bonds. that was when power was truely vested in the people. where did that go?? now we have a president that can go to war whenever he chooses, calling it whatever he wants. In order to fund it, congress just borrows money, and gives the bill to the taxpayers. and there we are, right back to taxation without true representation! true voting is done with money, not with chads and DIEBOLD rigged machines. we don't even have any real money anyway.

ahh


so i say screw the focus on law. we cannot use it as a measuring stick because none of us make it. we have to return to principles if americans want to claim to live in a free country. otherwise, i can't help but laugh when i hear it said.

if anyone wants to go dump some tea out, meet me in the harbor at 10. any takers? dorothy? the fish?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join