Yes, this will backfire badly on him. There is an audio interview with him 3 years ago where he specifically says he cannot do this because it is outside of the constraints of the constitution and yet? Today he went ahead and did it. Desperate people will do desperate things....he see's the writing on the wall. rated.

Hi Deb,

Sorry for not dropping by much anymore. I see you got an EP today although my guess is you do not put much value in that.

My first instinct was that this would backfire. But, as I watch some media coverage, I don't know that it will as much as it should. The type of criticism that would truly broadcast broadly just doesn't happen because the media just doesn't view the actions of Obama with a skeptical eye.

This is another example of desperation. He is pandering for votes. Just like he threw a bone to the LGBT community, he is now trying to do the same to the Hispanic community. I don't think it will work. It is all too transparent.

My thoughts is that he should be running FROM the halls of justice, not FOR elected office.

His list of criminal actions is sufficient to have him impeached tried and removed from office; however to many people think impeachment to be passe and antiquated. The founders put it in the Constitution. It should be used when appropriate and this lawless failed presidency is one of those times.

Thanks for this valuable post, Mr. McGarrett.


-R-

It would be helpful if you would point to the clause in the Constitution that prohibits Obama's policy change on immigrants.
While you're at it, detail his violations of the Constitution on the other complaints you make.
This isn't a Rwing website, so adding some meat to the bone is sort of a requirement.
Without that, this post seems to be missing something.

O'Rourke said it all. You seem to make assertions with no support. And as for the President pandering to Latinos for votes, that's silly. The President has a 40 point lead over Romney with Latinos. One doesn't do what you call politically risky where success is certain. Your rhetoric works against itself there.

The President may win, and he may lose in November. I don't think either possibility is a foregone conclusion. But the greater likelihood is that the President will win. Desperation is better defined by a party which plays utter obstruction, refusing even to support initiatives that you had previously recommended, all so that the President can be denied a success. No reasonably confident contestant takes such a dig in your heels tactic. This is not the action of having an offense against an opponent. This is more analogous to sabotage behind the lines when you are near total loss. There are many measurables in support of my assertion. The record use of filibuster in just one. It is short term gain for long term expense. The desperate ones are the GOP. Again, a victory by the President is not a foregone conclusion, but it is the greater likelihood.

As far as the immigrant issue, the president has an absolute power to grant pardons. There are other considerations, but that alone negates the unconstitutional or "lawlessness" charge.

Nobody is forcing insurance companies to provide free birth control, and there is no "religious freedom" to set the conditions of civil law, so no lawlessness there, either.

You need to be a bit more specific on your first and last bullet points, but so far you're 0-2.

Mark,

You and I both know that we disagree, probably vehemently, on most policy issues. I respect that you seek to apply to Obama and Democrats too and not just to Republicans. "It's OK if my guy does it" is not healthy but all too common among many.

Sorry, missing words in my comment to Mark:

Corrected: I respect that you seek to apply your standards to Obama and Democrats too and not just to Republicans.

Of course, Mr. McGarret, we come at this from different perspectives, but where we meet is the meaning of law. This guy has broken the law, and as a Constitutional "scholar," it is even more egregious.

Those who wish not to see this for what it is, can remain willfully ignorant if that suits them.

Dismantling habeas corpus and posse comitatus are malevolent, to say the least. Ignoring his OWN legal counsel re: Libya is unforgivable.

I'm on board with your first bullet point; this is scandalous.

I'll raise two other issues that I'm sure you recognize as well; you may disagree, but I'm not looking for an extended argument. First, Bush was infamous for his signing statements, issuing 161 of them over eight years. Obama has issued 19 so far. If we're to take a process view, that the President shouldn't consider "something the elected legislature decided against doing", Obama should be viewed as a significant improvement over Bush. Second, I think that at least some of what Obama does is in response to a dysfunctional Congress, including a record number of filibusters over the past few years.

The question is lawful and/or constitutional, Mark. What I consider to be right, wrong, wise or unwise isn't the question.

The military decides who to target for capture/kill, per the law passed by Congress, and as the president is the CIC, I don't get where McG decides that is unlawful, because it isn't.

I doubt there's a law about defining deaths of non-combatant citizens, but we've used "collateral damage" for some time. I don't think anyone should dismiss the deaths of innocents, but that's not the question. Show the law that says such redefining is unlawful.

So, 0-3, and we're down to the bankruptcy issue.

If that is about GM, that was a perfectly legal bankruptcy, which negates the whole of that statement.

0-4, unless you have some new information...

Rob, I added an update that raises a point for you to consider indirectly related to your comments.

Yes, Bush did signing statements and there is a valid argument to criticize what he did (I don't know enough about the details to weigh the merits of the goals).

In Obama's case, he does not need to issue signing statements because he does not even bother basing his actions on an actual law. All he needs to believe is that a different Congress to his liking might do something different and he will just implement a policy.

As to Congress being dysfunctional, I think that is in the eye of the beholder. An elected Congress that refuses to pass legislation that a President wants is not a reason for a President to just do what he wants. At least not in a system based on laws.

As it is, if a President can start any war he wants, deploy taxpayer dollars to fund bankrupt companies outside bankruptcy law, tell companies to provide a service for free, and implement policies that Congress specifically did not pass, what is it he cannot do?

For all of Bush's mistakes, he went to Congress to get TARP funding authorized, he went to Congress for an Iraq War resolution, he accepted the defeat of his immigration reform, and he accepted the defeat of his nominees. (I had forgot to list Obama's illegal recess appointment of Richard Cordray while Congress was specifically staying in session to prevent him from doing exactly what he did.)

Obama should be an embarrassment to liberals as his actions will make it possible for some future conservative President to cram things down their throats that they hate.

McGarrett50,

Let's pretend to be reasonable in this discussion across ideological lines. Take an objective view to assess your own. If you had to say that either Obama or congress has been amenable to compromise, which would you say was more? If you say Obama, you're right. If you say congress, you're lying. Take a look at the number of times the Senate has used filibuster. Compare it to previous eras. Votes cast 51-49 fail consistently now. You say the departure from the Constitution concerns you. Doesn't that? A minority has hijacked the American government, and that minority is not Obama. Now, if President Obama is trying to "cram" things down the throat of America, isn't a penchant for compromise a particularly difficult way to do that. Is there a conspiracy theory that explains how a President bent on compromise is forcing things? Don't the statistics actually all work against you? Can you say something rational?

Perhaps if Congress wants to deport those immigrants, they should supply ample funding and an expansion of the ICE workforce. Without doubt Obama's decision was political, but allocating limited resources to more completely address truly problematic immigration issues makes sense. We already know it's not illegal, which is your premise.

FYI, GM tried to get relief from Congress and, after they rejected the idea, the Bush administration authorized bridge loans to keep GM running. Obama denied to continue those loans and so GM was put through a perfectly legitimate and legal bankruptcy.

I see you're still addicted to your erroneous information, so there's no point in discussing what's true or not, You really didn't think this one through, McG. You're flailing.

But that's what I was getting at, McGarrett--while I think that the Presidency has too much power, I don't think that Obama has done anything different from past Presidents, except for stuff that conservatives don't like. We could each come up with lists, but in the end it comes down to our opinions.

As to Congress being dysfunctional, I think that is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm quoting nonpartisan researchers who study Congress; Republicans have become more conservative and less coniliatory, historically.

I think he forces the issue on the table, to which the Republicans have to be careful, as in the primaries, being totally anti-immigrant was good politics, not true in the general election, if, this was a major risk to take to, partly for the reasons of you post.
Great to see you here again, as it seems like it's been a while. :)

Immigration is an Article One Power, but, he didn't invade that exactly, although its close too. Administrative discretion in prioritizing resources is allowed, although at some point it edges too close to encouraging violation of the law. That edge he took, given the state laws especially, where in PA it's dicey ground for him there as to the real risk he is running, is also why it makes Republicans have to deal too, including what certain staffing decisions might be.

You are right on with your concerns about Obama. Does that mean I'm also a free market conservative? Depends on who's doing the defining. In 1964 I was a Goldwater conservative, and then the Republican Party abandoned me. I did a blog about this a few days ago. See http://open.salon.com/blog/stuartbramhall/2012/06/13/how_the_sustainability_movement_defies_conservativeliberal_labels

I think bullet point one can be addressed this way, as to context.
There exist people who want to damage and/or kill Americans. If it is a law enforcement issue only, then we infiltrate or deal with it after the fact. With terrorism, I think there actually ought to be a 1,000 people rule: people die all the time, so if its not 1,000 dead, screw it, and then we kill people after the fact, on the theory that showing an indifference to human life has a deterrent value at times as to people trying to use the normal emotion of compassion to hold you hostage. Anyone who sponsors terrorism, always the case, would have to consider, "Gee, there were hundreds dead, and they did nothing, so if it got really serious, that idea I have about nuking one of their cities as a 'demonstration of resolve' like in Russian and Chinese wargames rather often ended with them turning all the keys on the Tridents and saying confidence in 3richardson17dreohioishigh, and so that wouldn't happen in the first place.
As to terrrorism, if it is not a law enforcement issue fundamentally, then it is a question of what is the most efficient means to eliminate that threat, in which drone strikes are better than B-52s as to civilian casualties, although, demonstrating a stomach, nay, even bloodthirstinees, for inflicting civilian casualties sometimes is a good thing, like with nuclear deterrence; "go ahead Putin, burn one city, and then I turn all the keys on the Tridents, or, you don't intervene in country blank.
As to healthcare, that one I have some issues with, if mainly I wish everyone would stop assuming the medical profession doesn't have economic interests that directly drive costs, since if we don't have enough money, we can't defeat Ivan and the Chinese except by turning all the keys on the Tridents and Minutemann IIIs they didn't try to disable like they did in late 2010 in Wyoming; circuit failure my fanny on 50. Also, in some cases as to severity of injury or damage to health, we have insurance because of the reason identified by Adam Smith: empathy. Therefore, charging people in advance for only that part of health makes sense, if certainly not nationalizing the entire provision of that service, and, maybe Obama in the end listens to people who argue along those lines for high deductibles, good for a warlike population as to pain tolerance.
As to bankruptcy laws, go to the Source, which is the current fiat money system that generated this mess, if, since we can't agree on what benefits we want and what taxes we will pay, then Thank God we can print money for a mintute so that we can pay for the the nuclear weapons to solve that problem if China allies with Russia because they think we are too divided to fight them, like Madison said in Federalist 10, faction everywhere being the death of Republics.
It ain't perfect what he did, but the Republicans also have a chance here to get more of what they want on this issue than would otherwise be the case, as Obama only put out the totally low hanging fruit, noting that with Russian troops and weapons moving to Syria, demonstrating an ability to deal with issues that are laughably obvious to someone like Putin is important.

"JONATHAN TURLEY

Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, and other schools.

After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades ranging, representing whistleblowers, military personnel, and a wide range of other clients."

http://jonathanturley.org/about/

"Of course, the citizens of the United States once consented on a relevant principle when they ratified the Constitution and later the Bill of Rights. They consented to a government of limited powers where citizens are entitled to the full protections of due process against allegations by their government. That is clearly not the type of consent that Holder wants to revisit or discuss. Indeed, he insisted that “a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to ‘due process.’”

Holder’s new definition of “due process” was perfectly Orwellian. While the Framers wanted an objective basis for due process, Holder was offering little more than “we will give the process that we consider due to a target.” And even the vaguely described “due process” claimed by Holder was not stated as required, but rather granted, by the president. Three citizens have been given their due during the Obama administration and vaporized by presidential order. Frankly, few of us mourn their passing. However, due process appears to have been vaporized in the same moment — something many U.S. citizens may come to miss.

What Holder is describing is a model of an imperial presidency that would have made Richard Nixon blush. If the president can kill a citizen, there are a host of other powers that fall short of killing that the president might claim, including indefinite detention of citizens — another recent controversy. Thus, by asserting the right to kill citizens without charge or judicial review, Holder has effectively made all of the Constitution’s individual protections of accused persons matters of presidential discretion. These rights will be faithfully observed up to the point that the president concludes that they interfere with his view of how best to protect the country — or his willingness to wait for “justice” to be done. And if Awlaki’s fate is any indication, there will be no opportunity for much objection.

Already, the administration has successfully blocked efforts of citizens to gain review of such national security powers or orders. Not only is the list of citizens targeted with death kept secret, but the administration has insisted that courts do not play a role in the creation of or basis for such a list. Even when Awlaki’s family tried to challenge Obama’s kill order, the federal court declared that the cleric would have to file for himself — a difficult task when you are on a presidential hit list. Moreover, any attorney working with Awlaki would have risked being charged with aiding a terrorist.

When the applause died down after Holder’s speech, we were left with a bizarre notion of government. We have this elaborate system of courts and rights governing the prosecution and punishment of citizens. However, that entire system can be circumvented at the whim or will of the president. The president then becomes effectively the lawgiver or lifetaker for all citizens. The rest becomes a mere pretense of the rule of law"

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/07/obamas-kill-policy/

Clear violations of the fifth and fourteenth amendments.

An argument against the constitutionality of something like a kill list is fairly simple. It is fairly straight forward when you simply consider due process. But, if you do not consider the real world potential for international terror/crime in the scope of your duty to protect the country, then you are limiting the existence of the country to minutes or possibly hours. If an opponent can reliably know that the U.S. government will never go outside of the Constitution to protect itself, then its vulnerabilities can be easily determined and exploited. The principles within the Constitution are extremely important, but they are not more important than the country itself. They surge no purpose whatsoever if the country itself cannot manage to exist because of it. We could place speed governors on autos so that they could not exceed speed limits, but we don't because it can be reasoned that exceeding the law might be preferable to following it in some circumstances that can't be predicted. Yes, this argument can justify a police state, but it does not necessarily give rise to a police state. Scrutiny and suspicion are warranted, but to say that it is power grab, abuse, imperial, etc are probably not accurate.

There are t-shirts that lots of gun nuts wear that say, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." The 12 is a jury and the 6 are pall bearers. If survival is the question, you take the shot and face the jury rather than saying, since the shot cannot be legally justified, I will not take the shot, and simply allow myself to be shot at. The dots don't all connect in this question when one considers constitutionality and due process. It is something that has to be deliberated. But to get to the deliberation, you (the U.S.) must survive first.

It had to be said. Highly rated.
Age discrimination is another principle that Obama sets aside when it suits his purpose.

Too bad the OS loyalists that you attracted with this post couldn't recall the prohibitions of the Fifth Amendment prohibition of taking " . . . . life, liberty, or property without due process of law. . . . " We had to wait until Mark's comment in order to bring this point forward.

As to the "Dream Act" via executive order, the current, or the next, president can reverse the current pandering with a stroke of a pen. Therefore, if I were a "Dreamer", I would not rush headlong into the paperwork to get my 2-year work permit. Further, as has been mentioned, this was part of the provisions of the contemplated "Dream Act" Congress did not pass.

It all makes one wonder what this president taught in those Constitutional law classes.

Rated

bill's sophistry is unbounded. Although he took the following oath:

I, ____________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Section of the "Uniform Code of Military Justice:

851 Art. 51

(4) that the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt is upon the United States.

it is obvious that he either did not understand the oath and "The Uniform Code of Military Justice" or willingly chooses to ignore it and presume he is above such regulations.

"A New York Times article published on Tuesday unearths a lot of information about the White House’s largely secretive drone program: despite being a hallmark of the presidency of Barack Obama, authorities working under the commander-in-chief — as well as Obama himself — are for the most part mum when questions arise about the administration’s ongoing air strikes by way of unmanned robotic aircraft. In particular, the question of civilian casualties and the death toll of innocent Afghans and Pakistanis who have lost their life at the hands of Washington’s war machine are often left unanswered or, even worse, addressed differently. According to the Times’ latest write-up, though, the Obama administration has some scandalous opinions on who can and can’t be killed by its murder program.

The White House convinces itself that the Obama-ordered air strikes overseas have not killed many civilians because, according to the president, any and all men near around a drone target are considered enemies of America and can be executed without being added to the count of civilian casualties.

"It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent," is how the Times report it. "Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good."

The article was published on May 29 and was penned by Jo Becker and Scott Shane, who discussed the drone operations with several sources close to the president.

Within hours after the article hit the presses, Shane went on PBS’ Newshour program to extrapolate more on Obama’s explanation:
“The president apparently reacted quite strongly to a bad strike, an errant strike in Pakistan very early in the first days of his presidency, and has kept pressing the agencies involved to minimize civilian casualties,” Shane said. “But there’s also been some dispute over the way civilian casualties are counted. The CIA often counts able-bodied males, military-age males who are killed in strikes as militants, unless they have concrete evidence to sort of prove them innocent, and some folks at the State Department and elsewhere have questioned that kind of a process.”

The Times article goes on to explain that President Obama is incredibly instrumental when it comes to targeted drone strikes and oversees counterterrorism operations involving the unmanned aerial aircraft so much so that he says who can and can’t be killed. To Newshour, Shane said, “Instead of wanting deniability and wanting to keep at a distance from this lethal program, he actually wanted to be very much part of it.” According to that Times’ report, it now makes a lot of sense why the commander-in-chief has never condemned the continuing strikes.
Speaking to an international audience during a virtual townhall earlier this year, President Obama said that drones had "not caused a huge number of civilian casualties” and he added that it’s "important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash.” But when the Bureau of Investigative Journalism released the findings of a drone strike stud last year, the UK-based agency said , that the number of civilians killed in US drone strikes were probably 40 percent higher than what the American authorities were actually reporting: between 2004 and 2011, they put the estimate of civilian deaths at a figure of 385, but added in the research that the toll could actually come close to tallying 775 casualties.

Now it’s revealed that the leash may not have much slack, but the noose at the end is frighteningly all too encompassing."

http://rt.com/usa/news/drone-strike-obama-casualties-604/

In a previous instance of this same kind of malevolent interpretation of lawlessness to fit his PERSONAL convenience, he called someone who had not yet even been charged "a criminal." When I complained that the person in question had not yet even been charged and minimally should be called an ALLEGED criminal, he fumed and frothed, denying the necessity to add alleged.

Finally, without further word, he, abruptly left OS.

Bill's service with the L.A. Police Dept. has apparently serve him well, as he feels qualified to pronounce the guilt of a person without the need for a judge or jury.

Our resident constitutional fakir once again charges blindly into the breech.

While a strident defense citing the 5th should be launched regardless of the situation, and the legal rationale for targeting a US citizen should be known, it's not a simple constitutional question unless we ignore relevant facts.

Without doubt Awlaki became an enemy of the US, crossing the boundary between civil and military law. There's a solid constitutional difference in military and civil due process, and where a enemy *and* US citizen is concerned, due process can be limited to military tribunal -- Ex Parte Quirin. We executed a US citizen, German saboteur, based on a tribunal ruling.

Of course, the difference between Mr Haupt and Awlaki is we had captured Haupt, in America. If Awlaki is not available for trial, then to consider not sanctioning him because he hasn't had the same due process afforded non-enemy US citizens is ridiculous. There can be no habeas corpus if there's no corpus available, and we shouldn't allow said corpus to hide behind the 5th "as if" he has an actual civil complaint.

In fact, his father, with the ACLU, filed a lawsuit to prevent the killing. The judge dismissed it because the father didn't have standing and the issue was, according to the Constitution, a matter left to the political branches. That'd be Congress and the Executive, not the courts...and that's due process.

Awlaki was targeted under the congressional use of force law passed after 9/11. He was also killed under the due process of international law. Yemen had already tried and convicted him in absentia (for what it's worth).

While McG and Chris, the Constipational expert, want to shout unconstitutional because they see it as a knock against Obama, neither one of them truly regrets the Awlaki death (and both secretly agree with it). Yes, you're both faking it, and Chris adds to that by faking some element of constitutional knowledge.

Mark wants to make the same claim because he's...well...Mark. The fact is Turley's position is merely an assertion. It's an assertion that should be made, as the 5th should be vigorously defended, just as any person deserves a strident defense. However, despite what one might want to believe, it's not definitive.

Due process was applied, Awlaki is dead. Bada-bing.

jturley@law.gwu.edu

"The principles within the Constitution are extremely important, but they are not more important than the country itself. They surge (sic) no purpose whatsoever if the country itself cannot manage to exist because of it."

"It's an assertion that should be made, as the 5th should be vigorously defended, just as any person deserves a strident defense. However, despite what one might want to believe, it's not definitive."

Query: What is the point in defending a country if, at the end of the situation, nothing is left of the country you were trying to defend? If we throw out the Constitution in defense of the United States of America, a country founded on the rule of law, then what exactly are we defending?

“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.”

Looks like Poor Richard had the right of it.

Rob,

It would seem we disagree. While tactics such as filibusters have been used by both sides, some of what Obama is doing is new.

Regarding the appointment of Richard Cordray, here is an article *from 2008*...

(http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2008/0103/p02s02-uspo.html)

...where Democrats first used the technique of keeping the Senate in sessions for a minute a day to successfully prevent President Bush from making recess appointments (i.e. Bush did not usurp power over the Senate). The article states that this is a precedent that future Democratic Presidents might regret.

Fast forward to 2011, the Republicans use the same technique. Obama ignores it and appoints Richard Cordray ( he usurps power that Bush opted not to). So, here is one specific example. The illegal immigration is the one going on now. Obama originally said he did not have this power. Later, when it suits his whim, he claims he does.

Yet, he is defended by many who severely criticized Bush for less.

So, the entry point of my post would seem to show that you and I disagree that Obama's actions are more than a repetition of the past... and that you might be example of the liberals who seem unconcerned about government power when their guy is in charge.

Dr. Bramhall, as you surmise, this post is not meant to convince anyone to be a free market conservative... it is meant to show that there are some common standards of freedom from government that diverse people can agree with.

Uncle Chri, you are correct that Mitt Romney can reverse this if he is elected. Unfortunately for liberals, Romney can refer to Obama's precedent to do other things that normally would require legislation from Congress.

just phyllis,

It IS following the Constitution. That's my point.
If you don't understand the Constitution, which is further refined and defined by jurisprudence, you might take every element literally (like Chris). However, few rights are absolute and they cannot be, even to be able to exist with other rights. The judiciary is sometimes called upon to define a balance, or that one right should be held more important than another.

Query: What is the point in defending the Constitution if, at the end of the situation, nothing is left of the country you were trying to defend? If we throw out the defense of the United States of America based on a constitutional claim, then what exactly are we defending?

As you see, your query works in both directions, which is basically what I tried to explain. It's a question of applied reason and a balancing of public safety rights, in this case, opposed to an individual right.

I am only mildly offended when you say I'm throwing out the Constitution. I might be more offended if you actually knew what you were talking about.

And there's the insult. Feel better now?

I responded in kind.

Why is it an insult to ask how throwing away the founding document of the country you are purporting to defend is a good idea?

You accused me of throwing out the Constitution.
I accused you of not knowing what you're talking about.
That's a response-in-kind, though I made a better case.

When and if at least five people in black smocks decide the Awlaki killing was unconstitutional, it will be unconstitutional. Until then it's a matter of conflicting opinions, not Right and Wrong, per the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights isn't absolute and never has been. You don't have an absolute right to unlimited free speech, no absolute right to own a gun, etc. Questions of public safety apply. Conflicts have to be weighed. New situations need new definitions. It's been that way since the day it was written, as it's a guide and a set of principles, not a letter-of-law legal code -- that's what descends from it.

I see questions - p.j. perceives them as accusations. They MUST be accusations as p.j. has never been wrong about anything.

I asked a question, which you have now answered. So we don't discard it, we modify it to fit the need. And the rights are not carved in stone, but they are pretty darn important to the thing that is known as this country. But there does come a point when, in the zeal to protect something precious, the protection can be taken too far and the thing is destroyed. If that happens, what have we accomplished?

I am trying to find the logic in the argument, and I haven't found anyone yet who can explain it. Or will, without calling me names. Can you help?

Well, Mark
When I am quoted and that quote is used as an example of "throwing out the Constitution," it is an accusation.

Excuse me for not reproducing others opinions to represent mine or linking to articles in place of my own thoughts. I guess I might do that if I didn't actually have a real opinion and had to rely on the words of others and shrill knee-jerk hyperbole.

PS--I'm not wrong.

You needn't assure me you're not wrong - that's axiomatic and absolute.

phyllis,
We simply keep an eye on our representatives, assert our power, try to have honest SC Justices and hope for the best. The greater threat to those rights involves a detachment from self-rule and the impoverishment of our citizens. Compared to that, this is trivial.

As to the Awlaki thing, those legal justifications need to be narrowly drawn, but have to account for asymmetric warfare. That's why the justifications should be known, a legal effort for and against them made and a constitutional decision rendered.

In no way should it be the arbitrary decision of one person, though. That would not work well...

Paul, thank you. That does help me out. I appreciate your time tonight.

"Bill's service with the L.A. Police Dept. has apparently serve him well, as he feels qualified to pronounce the guilt of a person without the need for a judge or jury."

Mark, this comment of yours is an example of that which you decry in the very comment. Don't they call this "hoisted by your own petard." ?

Mark, to explain that further, saying that someone broke the law is not the same as saying that they are guilty.

Mark,

Let me help you out with all of this. I oppose kill lists. I oppose the President's kill list. I oppose murder. I oppose assault. I oppose lawlessness. Your statement implies otherwise.

However, I said above that strict adherence to the Constitution, if that is how this has been determined by this administration, could, (get this, could) make the country for which the Constitution serves, vulnerable to attack. Strictly as a principle of self preservation, it stands to reason that one seeks to survive an existential threat first, then deals with matters of the law second. That is purely logical. I am not saying that it is advisable in a legal context. I said it is advisable only in the interest of survival, if that is actually necessary. IF, that is actually necessary.

This is not sophistry. I have no investment in the question personally. I do not stand in jeopardy of being impeached if this is determined to be unconstitutional. I am not the office holder. I also do not think it is likely, but that remains to be seen.

I don't own a gun. I oppose their use. I know how to use them. I have professional experience with them, but I choose not to use them. However, if I were in a life or death situation, and one were available, I would use it to preserve my life. That is not sophistry. I would counter the general principle in order to survive in the specific situation. That is self preservation. From that point, I would take my chances in court. With the removal of the existential threat, I return to the civil process of due process. That is not sophistry. That is logical threat interdiction triage. It can n to be done in reverse order. You can't allow yourself to be killed, and THEN take the issue up in court. Don't claim sophistry just because you can't defeat an argument with logic.

By the way, when I just stated that "I would take my chances in court", I did not just pronounce myself guilty. That means that shooting someone is in violation of the law. From there, one goes to court to defend one's legal innocence. The same applies for Bradley Manning, the case you were referring to. Saying that someone broke the law is not the same as pronouncing guilt. That was your claim, and your claim is false. Breaking the law and guilt for breaking the law are not the same thing. Bradley Manning broke the law. Guilt has not been determined.

Re: Blog something. Bye.
Reply Forward
StanAccrington to Bill Beck
Fuck you, Bill.


Magnus101 wrote >>
--------------------------------------
Please do not attempt to hijack this blog. You are not contributing anymore. You are just arguing your treatment.

Here's an idea, blog something.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is this nonsense PM I received from a Stan Accrington? Is Stan Accrington McGarrett50? Do you have two blogs?

Bill,

No, I do not have two blogs and do not send offensive PMs. I don't see any reason why your comments on this post would have prompted this. Unfortunately, OS seems to have quite a few people who lash out at people they disagree with.