The Fourth Reich

[Colleen Thomas]

All countries eventually collapse. The glory that was Rome is gone. Athens's democratic experiment failed ingloriously. Mighty Carthage lives only in dusty history books and a few scattered artifacts.

I never thought I would be alive when the Grand experiment that was represenative democracy in the U.S. failed, but I have. Today, the U.S. Congress and the president passed a law, fully as destructive to the rule of law as Germany's enabling act of 1938.

The rule of law is dead. You have no rights, save those you enjoy at Congress's pleasure. Judicial review has been removed as a barrier to rule by fiat and decree.

It's a very strange feeling, knowing that Congress may write a law aimed specifically at you. That it can set aside any judge's decision in your favor. Strip that judge of his jurisdiction over the case, and pass it on to a court they feel will render a verdict they like.

The only slim hope we have is that the judiciary rules the law unconsitiutional. If they do not, the consitution becomes a sham. Window dressing to keep the masses still.

I'm still in shock that this could happen. That congress would become so monumentally arrogant as to belive it has no check upon it's power. That a U.S. president would echo that sentiment. Now only the courts can speak up for us, or we are lost.

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

If the courts fail to speak out, there will be no one left to speak for any of us.

 

[Weird Harold]

Today, the U.S. Congress and the president passed a law, fully as destructive to the rule of law as Germany's enabling act of 1938.

Are we supposed to guess which of the many dubious laws this administration is passing has your dander up?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Are we supposed to guess which of the many dubious laws this administration is passing has your dander up?

Well, since it was passed today Harold, and it's only 3:00 in the morning on this day, it should narrow it down to about...one.

My dander is not up. I was angry before it was passed. Now I am just numb.

Edited: Pardon me Harold, I forget the time zones sometime, it may actually still be yesterday to you. The bill I am refering to is Bill s686.

Reedited: Had the wrong bill number.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Excerpts, I'm still searching for the full text:



"The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life."


___


"Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a state court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.


"In such a suit, the District Court shall determine ... any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this act, notwithstanding any prior state court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in state court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of state court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the state courts have been exhausted."


___


"After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life."

Edit: the full text has not been sent to the Senate web site, so I'm ot able ro give the full text. Apologies.

 

[Weird Harold]

Well, since it was passed today Harold, and it's only 3:00 in the morning on this day, it should narrow it down to about...one.

Fine, if you insist I go research it, I'll just decline to comment.

I don't follow congress on a daily basis -- or even on a weekly basis -- because it just raises my blood pressure. I have no clue about what your talking about and you don't give any specifics for me to comment on.

 

[Weird Harold]

"The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life."

That's sufficient, thank you.

I agree that the US Congress is meddling in something that they have no business meddling in. However, I don't think there a chance of a snow-flke in hell of this being overturned before it does what it was intended to to do.

I think it will probably be overturned as an ex post facto legislation if SCOTUS agrees to rule on it, but I'll be surprised if they do anytime soon.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

That's sufficient, thank you.

I agree that the US Congress is meddling in something that they have no business meddling in. However, I don't think there a chance of a snow-flke in hell of this being overturned before it does what it was intended to to do.

I think it will probably be overturned as an ex post facto legislation if SCOTUS agrees to rule on it, but I'll be surprised if they do anytime soon.

Apologies if I seemed flippant. It's four in the morning and I'm really in shock.

I don't think it will be overturned either. And the precedent is horrifying.

Congress may pass a law specific to you.
Congress may set aside the judgement of any court.
Congress may bar that court from jurisdiction in the case and from issuing injunctions in the case.
Congress may assign said case to any court it chooses, reguardless of that court's previous jurisdiction in such cases. Up to and includinging givng a federal court jurisdiction over matters long held to be reserve powers of the state.

 

[Somme]

Keep this going, Colly........

 

[Colleen Thomas]

For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.

Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.

SEC. 3. RELIEF.

After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.

Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. STAY.

Upon the filing of a suit or claim under this Act, the District Court may issue a stay of any State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo pending the determination of the suit.

SEC. 6. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.

SEC. 7. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.

Nothing is this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--

(1) to assisting suicide, or

(2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.

SEC. 8. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.

Nothing is this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation.

SEC. 9. NO AFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.

Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990.
Passed the Senate March 17, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.


109th CONGRESS

 

[Op_Cit]

Colly wake up. This is not new, it's been going on for over a hundred years.

Way back when, the Judicial branch decided that nobody can question the constitutionality of a law unless you had something called standing.

That meant you had to be harmed by it. Thrown in jail, killed, maimed, whatever by the law before you could question it.

Then sometime around 1950 there was another landmark case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the person questioning the law could not claim it as unconstitutional because they had for some time prior to that obeyed the law.

That is because you followed the law for a time like a few years before you stepped afoul of it, you implicitly accepted the law and therefor it was allowed to stand. After a time this has been expanded generalisticly to: because government has been doing X (this and such or whatever) for a while now, it's OK.

It's one of the fundamental flaws of the legal system like precident: Judge so and so said in his case that suchandso was legal so therefor you should find it legal here.

The reason the law is so complicated is for a purpose: to allow judges to do whatever the hell they want to do. To allow them to make up an excuse for whatever decision they want to make. Ultimately this results in a level of corruption you cannot imagine. "Illegal" corruption as well as philosophical. As much as you won't want to believe it, 99% of judges above the lowest municipal level are involved in illegal corruption: use of their authority for personal profit. But hey, I must be a heretic.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly wake up. This is not new, it's been going on for over a hundred years.

Way back when, the Judicial branch decided that nobody can question the constitutionality of a law unless you had something called standing.

That meant you had to be harmed by it. Thrown in jail, killed, maimed, whatever by the law before you could question it.

Then sometime around 1950 there was another landmark case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the person questioning the law could not claim it as unconstitutional because they had for some time prior to that obeyed the law.

That is because you followed the law for a time like a few years before you stepped afoul of it, you implicitly accepted the law and therefor it was allowed to stand. After a time this has been expanded generalisticly to: because government has been doing X (this and such or whatever) for a while now, it's OK.

It's one of the fundamental flaws of the legal system like precident: Judge so and so said in his case that suchandso was legal so therefor you should find it legal here.

The reason the law is so complicated is for a purpose: to allow judges to do whatever the hell they want to do. To allow them to make up an excuse for whatever decision they want to make. Ultimately this results in a level of corruption you cannot imagine. "Illegal" corruption as well as philosophical. As much as you won't want to believe it, 99% of judges above the lowest municipal level are involved in illegal corruption: use of their authority for personal profit. But hey, I must be a heretic.

I am quite awake, though I should be asleep. Nothing like this has ever been done before. While you point to salient questions, they are open to interpretation and argument. This is a blatant power grab. And by it, every right I have ever enjoyed has just become a priveledge, subject to the pleasure of the Congress.

 

[hydrex]

To echo Op_Cit,

A lot of people try to get out of paying taxes but the only way they can even attempt to do that is if they've never paid taxes before or else they have complied with the law once so now can't claim it as unconstitutional.

 

[Pure]

Fourth Reich?

Colly said,

The rule of law is dead. You have no rights, save those you enjoy at Congress's pleasure. Judicial review has been removed as a barrier to rule by fiat and decree.

It's a very strange feeling, knowing that Congress may write a law aimed specifically at you. That it can set aside any judge's decision in your favor. Strip that judge of his jurisdiction over the case, and pass it on to a court they feel will render a verdict they like.

First of all, your postings in this and the Terri thread are fine. Second, there are some weird happenings, I agree, in respect of a law for one person. But I think that has happened before, as in awarding "Joe Blow" a medal of honor.

Third, we are drifting towards fascistic government, dictatorship of federal power, weilded by the religious right. No question.

But I think your analysis of why, is not quite right. Legislators writing laws that set aside judges decisions is not, per se, and indication of tyrrany or a move thereto.

Odd, this move toward fascistic rule occurs in the US, which has perhaps the strongest judiciary.

In Canada, Parliament can pass a law overcoming its Charter of Rights, say putting Gypsies in jail. It's called parliamentary supremacy, and hold in a number of countries. Yet they are not moving towards fascism. It's far from clear, and not established by you, that parliamentary supremacy--embodied as in Canada-- is a bad idea, tending toward tyrrany.

Let me give you an example, Colly. Japanese Americans in WWII. They got interred. Japanese Canadians were also. The US has 'supremacy of law', but the law was supine. You see the point.

The larger point is that 'the will of the people' has to prevail; we just don't want it immediate, and writ in stone. Hence in the Canadian case, the Charter can be overridden by a Provincial legislature, but that require a formal procedure, AND the situation comes up for review in, say, five years. (The clever idea is to MAKE the parliament say 'we're going to set aside this Charter Right....' This creates embarrassment, and so it's been rarely done.)

In your case, Colly, the Republican are re fashioning the judiciary. If you fear mob rule by the Christian Right, the judges, esp. as appointed by Bush, are going to behave as in the Japanese case. They will cave.

They can't be a 100% effective barrier against mob rule given that 'the people rule'. The prohibition amendment is a good example. There it's all done proper. No liquor. Done with entirely legitimate process.

So the problem is more intractable than you suggest, and 'power to the people' is not necessarily a bad way to proceed (esp. in the form of parliamentary supremacy.) provided there are 'checks', delays, and self checking procedures. I, like you, am sorry it's these people, manipulated by xxx, and so on, but that's how the system works.

 

[Op_Cit]

I am quite awake, though I should be asleep. Nothing like this has ever been done before. While you point to salient questions, they are open to interpretation and argument. This is a blatant power grab. And by it, every right I have ever enjoyed has just become a priveledge, subject to the pleasure of the Congress.

Yes, you can choose to interpret reality anyway you wish.

If you want to be happy, just forget about this and go about your business like Niemoller before his famous quote. Trust that whatever they do is what they're supposed to do. Or that in the end, it'll all work out. Really, honestly, that's the best advice.

But if you want to be really anoying (to me), rant and rave for a while, and when the final federal judge uphold's the husband's right to decide (or whatever your favor is), settle down and say, "See the world is OK, everything is as it should be, the system worked." Then go back to sleep.

Or you can choose to stay awake. Look back through history and see that Santa Claus never existed. It didn't just happen yesterday, it happened when they wrote the Constitution. It happened because the poison pill of the "Wellfare Clause" was allowed. It happened because the anti-federalists allowed themselves to be appeased by an ill-conceived "Bill of Rights". It happened for a thousand little reasons, but mostly because they failed to understand history and fell victim to the same myths as you. That's the worst advice, because you'll never get any sleep. Reality isn't pretty.

(Hydrex: you are correct, that decision I cited was from a tax case, but I skipped mentioning that because doubting the state's right to rob you is the mark of a heretic.)

 

[Op_Cit]

Third, we are drifting towards fascistic government, dictatorship of federal power, weilded by the religious right. No question.

It's not a scheme of the religious right.

All governments always drift towards the fascistic, it is in its nature. There's a great quote from, I think, Orwell-- or that other guy, Eric Blair--, that goes something like:

"Government will, for the best of intentions, always evolve to enslave the people."

(If somebody knows the correct quote/attribution, please tell me.)

 

[Pure]

Hi Op,
While you make some good points, I have to disagree with one.

It happened because the poison pill of the "Wellfare Clause" was allowed.

Which clause are we dealing with? 'promote the general welfare'. Arguably every government considers that. In Canada, the general clauses are 'peace, order, and good government.'

Secondly, in Canada, Charter Rights are subject to 'limitiations as are demonstrably necessary in a free and democratic society.' There are and always have been, limitations on the BR, even though the phrasing is absolute.

An example is 'free speech.' It's against the general welfare that that include inciting a mob, or panicking theater goers by yelling 'fire.'

So while I agree about dangers, I see no way around them, unless you have Jesus Mary and the angels running things.

---
as to
All governments always drift towards the fascistic, it is in its nature.

There is a grain of truth, but taking say, the govs of England, Norway, Czechoslavakia, Colombia, I don't see that that's always the case, though there may be fascistic periods.

However, your claim suffers because no time frame is specified. You can always claim fascism is 1000 years up the road. That too can be countered. We know some government fall before they become dictatorial (hence the Czechoslavakia case).

Your claim also suffers from perpectival problems: Is the glass empty or half full. Assume the US has had fascistic periods, e.g. during the world wars and just after. Are those the exception or the rule. Could not we equally say, the general course is NON fascistic, with fascistic deviations?
Who's to say?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly said,

The rule of law is dead. You have no rights, save those you enjoy at Congress's pleasure. Judicial review has been removed as a barrier to rule by fiat and decree.

It's a very strange feeling, knowing that Congress may write a law aimed specifically at you. That it can set aside any judge's decision in your favor. Strip that judge of his jurisdiction over the case, and pass it on to a court they feel will render a verdict they like.

First of all, your posting in this and the Terri thread are fine. Second, there are some weird happening, I agree, in respect of a law for one person. But I think that has happened before, as in awarding "Joe Blow" a medal of honor.

Third, we are drifting towards fascistic government, dictatorship of federal power, weilded by the religious right. No question.

But I think your analysis of why is not quite right. Legislators writing laws that set asided judges decisions is not, per se, and indication of tyrrany or a move thereto.

Odd, this move toward fascistic rule occurs in the US, which has perhaps the strongest judiciary.

In Canada, Parliament can pass a law overcoming its Charter of Rights, say putting Gypsies in jail. It's called parliamentary supremacy, and hold in a number of countries. Yet they are not moving towards fascism. It's far from clear, and not established by you, that parliamentary supremacy is a bad idea, tending toward tyrrany.

Let me give you an example, Colly. Japanese Americans in WWII. They got interred. Japanese Canadians were also. The US has 'supremacy of law', but the law was supine. You see the point.

The larger point is that 'the will of the people' has to prevail; we just don't want it immediate, and writ in stone. Hence in the Canadian case, the Charter can be overridden by a Provincial legislature, but that require a formal procedure, AND the situation comes up for review in, say, five years.

In your case, Colly, the Republican are re fashioning the judiciary. If you fear mob rule by the Christian Right, the judges, esp. as appointed by Bush, are going to behave as in the Japanese case. They will cave.

They can't be a 100% effect barrier against mob rule. The prohibition amendment is a good example. There it's all done proper. No liquor.
Done with entirely legitimate process.

So the problem is more intractable that you suggest, and 'power to the people' is not necessarily a bad way to proceed (esp. in the form of parliamentary supremacy.) I, like you, am sorry it's these people, manipulated by xxx, and so on, but that's how the system works.

I felt another thread was needed. The Teri thread is dealing with that specific case and while not truly a thread jack, I am no tlonger concerned with the ethical questions involved there. My intent was to stick with this thread and hopefully, it ill remove this issue from imp's thread.

I don't understand your contention Pure. If this is not a case of Tyranical seizure of power, can you explain why in more detail?

As I see it:

1. A law has been enacted that specifically effects the rights of one individual.

2. The state courts, those courts charged with hearing cases involving medical proceedure and practice within that state, after years of hearing cases have had their decision set aside. An action I do not belive congress is entitled to.

3. Further, that courts has beenbarred from taking any further action in said case, it's rights, perogatives and jurisdiction revoked by legilative fiat.

4. A court that has no jurisdiction in the case has been granted jurisdiction, in blatant violation of the consitition. Medical cases have been considered a reserve power. As recently as last year the 9th circut court upheld that interpretation. Even if you assume, that this granting of judical power adheres to the Neccessary and Proper clause, no effort was made within the bill to explain why it was neccessary or proper.

The ramifications of this bill are that congress

Can pass a law specific to you.
Can set aside the ruling of any court it chooses.
Can revoke the jurisdiction of any court in any matter it chooses.
Can assign jurisdiction to a court of it's chooseing, even when that court has no history of nor viable claim to jurisdiction in the case.

So, theoretically COngress may decide thatmy right to free speech is null and void and may pass a law specific to me, Colleen Thomas, revoking my right.

Once I have fought it out in court, should I win, they may set aside the cverdict of the court.

They may further revoke that court's jurisdiction over the matter, effectively baring it from issuing injunction son my behalf.

They may then assign my case to a court of their choosing, one where perhaps a particularly rabid fundy Bush appointee can hear it.

I think the implication of the law being specific to one person is important, thus my quote. If they are just infinging on my right to free speech, when they come for me, who will speak up?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Yes, you can choose to interpret reality anyway you wish.

If you want to be happy, just forget about this and go about your business like Niemoller before his famous quote. Trust that whatever they do is what they're supposed to do. Or that in the end, it'll all work out. Really, honestly, that's the best advice.

But if you want to be really anoying (to me), rant and rave for a while, and when the final federal judge uphold's the husband's right to decide (or whatever your favor is), settle down and say, "See the world is OK, everything is as it should be, the system worked." Then go back to sleep.

Or you can choose to stay awake. Look back through history and see that Santa Claus never existed. It didn't just happen yesterday, it happened when they wrote the Constitution. It happened because the poison pill of the "Wellfare Clause" was allowed. It happened because the anti-federalists allowed themselves to be appeased by an ill-conceived "Bill of Rights". It happened for a thousand little reasons, but mostly because they failed to understand history and fell victim to the same myths as you. That's the worst advice, because you'll never get any sleep. Reality isn't pretty.

(Hydrex: you are correct, that decision I cited was from a tax case, but I skipped mentioning that because doubting the state's right to rob you is the mark of a heretic.)

I don't know who you are Op, don't know who you think you are, but don't presume to lecture me on history. Your particular take is just that, your take, emphasising what you wish and deemphasising what you wish. It's basically, opinion, your interpretation. Don't present it as fact and start applying lables to me if I don't acept it as such.

I'm tired, I have a head ache, I'm terribly upset, but I am not fucking stupid. Don't insult my intelligence. You have every right to state your opinion and I am not about to imply you don't. You have no right to assume your take is any way superior to mine. You specifically have no right to present your opinion as fact and deride me for not accepting it as such.

I majored in history. I am quite concious of the methodology involved in interpreting it. And I am well able to separate personal interpretation from historic fact.

 

[Pure]

I agree we need a separate thread, that's why I'm here.

Listen, the 'right' and the majority bungle things, as with this Terri law (almost law) and the one in Florida.

So the focus on an individual is silly. But the example I gave, prohibition, came with 'due process.' Likewise there could be a constituional amendment disadvantaging homosexuals ('pro family').

But a right of the legislature or finally the people to determine jurisdiction of the courts, what's the problem. We don't want it happening on Tuesdays and Thursday one way, of course.

As I said, the problem is inherent in 'rule of the people'. 'Mob rule' is always a possibility. The Bush bros monkey tactics shouldn't divert attention from the main problem.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I agree we need a separate thread, that's why I'm here.

Listen, the 'right' and the majority bungle things, as with this Terri law (almost law) and the one in Florida.

So the focus on an individual is silly. But the example I gave, prohibition, came with 'due process.' Likewise there could be a constituional amendment disadvantaging homosexuals ('pro family').

But a right of the legislature or finally the people to determine jurisdiction of the courts, what's the problem. We don't want it happening on Tuesdays and Thursday one way, of course.

As I said, the problem is inherent in 'rule of the people'. 'Mob rule' is always a possibility. The Bush bros monkey tactics shouldn't divert attention from the main problem.

I'm too tired and too drugged to make any sense of what you are saying J.

It's obviously well past time I should just go to bed. It won't be all better in the morning, but maybe I can wrap my head around things better.

Good night all.

 

[Op_Cit]

Hi Op,
While you make some good points, I have to disagree with one.

It happened because the poison pill of the "Wellfare Clause" was allowed.

Which clause are we dealing with? 'promote the general welfare'. Arguably every government considers that. In Canada, the general clauses are 'peace, order, and good government.'

Not talking about the preamble. There is a clause in the body of the USCon that says something to the effect that Congress can enact laws to promote the general welfare.

This allows Congress to argue that building a skateboard park in BF, Nevada is a valid use of tax dollars. This is the same clause that fed's cite in regulating drugs (they can't cite "interstate commerce" to make growing MJ for your own purposes illegal).

On this basis congress can do anything they want and cite "for the public good" as a reason and it will stand.

Legal scholars say that this clause was expressly put into the constitution by the federalists to allow themselves the power the anti-federalists didn't want the fed to have.

(Note: I should say Big Gov/Small Gov instead of federalists/anti... as I recall there was some twisting of that meaning during the writing of the federalist papers.)

 

[Pure]

cite your source, cite the phrase.

then, if it's there, show that it's any more dangerous than similar phrases in most constitutions--i.e., the public good has to ultimately trump individual rights to some degree, and I see nothing wrong with that, if it's done with safeguards (e.g., the 'takings' clause of the Constitution).

 

[Op_Cit]

I don't know who you are Op, don't know who you think you are, but don't presume to lecture me on history. Your particular take is just that, your take, emphasising what you wish and deemphasising what you wish. It's basically, opinion, your interpretation. Don't present it as fact and start applying lables to me if I don't acept it as such.

I'm tired, I have a head ache, I'm terribly upset, but I am not fucking stupid. Don't insult my intelligence. You have every right to state your opinion and I am not about to imply you don't. You have no right to assume your take is any way superior to mine. You specifically have no right to present your opinion as fact and deride me for not accepting it as such.

I majored in history. I am quite concious of the methodology involved in interpreting it. And I am well able to separate personal interpretation from historic fact.

I am an anonymous nobody.

Who I think I am is the stupidest person ever born. And I spend all my time trying not to be an idiot. It's my one true aspiration.

As for "lecturing on history" that's not what I was doing but what the heck take it that way if you want. What's the difference between you ranting "they're being tyrants!" and my pointing out "this is nothing new"? Would you feel better if I cut and pasted from text sources?

 

[Op_Cit]

cite your source, cite the phrase.

then, if it's there, show that it's any more dangerous than similar phrases in most constitutions--i.e., the public good has to ultimately trump individual rights to some degree, and I see nothing wrong with that, if it's done with safeguards (e.g., the 'takings' clause of the Constitution).

No.

You are claiming knowledge that the phrase is not there. Prove that phrase is not there and I'll give you a thousand dollars. (I know exactly what section it is in, I just think maybe you should take the time to go and actually read it.)

As for it's interpretation and "trump" that's a matter of record in many, many cases. But here's a simple little examination you can make: Why did they decide they needed a constitutional ammendment to ban alcohol, but then years later it wasn't needed to ban peyote, MJ, etc.? Did the Constitution change? Do the math. You don't need to read the detail if you just use reason to look at what goes on.

As for safeguards... sheesh there are thousands of cases. THERE ARE NO SAFEGUARDS.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Now that the dust has settled from the election, we can all see just how serious the new republican right is to enact their agenda by fiat.

Just read this first thing when I woke up this morning:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050321/ap_on_re_us/governors_unions

It's a news piece about how some republican governors are terminating the collective bargaining priviledges of unionized government workers in their states. In effect, this de-unioinizes them and pulls their teeth. The governors are doing this by not by law, but by executive order: that is, by dictating, circumventing their legislatures and going over the heads of the courts.

A union's only strength comes from its power to bargain collectively on behalf of its members. The right to collective bargaining was won through some very bloody struggles at the turn of the century, and is largely responsible for the existence of things we now take for granted, such as an American middle class, the 40-hour work week, the disappearance of sweat shops, child labor laws, and decent wages. Stripped of their right to collective bargain, the unions are basically terminated.

I'm not sure of the constitutionality of these executive orders, but apparently the writing is on the wall.

This is exactly the way Kings used to rule.