Bush signs law authorising harsh interrogation

[BobbyO]

Quote by: madprophet Could you be more specific? What unaccountable authority does each branch have? And where are these powers granted?

Throughout the Constitution. The legislature has absolute authority, for example, for determining its membership standards

[madprophet]

Quote by: BobbyO The legislature has absolute authority, for example, for determining its membership standards

Um, no. The Constitution determines membership standards. And, of course, the voters.

Would you like to try that again? And how about one "absolute authority" for each branch? With citations, please.

[madprophet]

Quote by: BobbyO The Hamdi decision overturned the previous law governing interrogations. But that law, constitutionally, had barred the courts from jusristiction. I suppose Bush could have continued constitutional crisis created by the USSC.

Dude, do you know anything about anything?

Hamdi dealt with the Habeas Corpus rights of an American citizen, not toture (sorry, "interrogations.") It was in Hamdan (which also did not deal with torture,) that the Administration tried -- and failed -- to argue that the Detainee Treatment Act stripped jurisdiction from the Supreme Court.

Tell me though, how can a law passed by Congress "constitutionally" bar the Courts from their constitutionally appointed jurisdiction? I'd love to hear your scholarly opinion.

And hey, wait-a-minute, didn't you say, erroneously, that the Court overturned that law? And yet you claim the law was constitutional. Duuh, innit the Court's job to decide a laws constitutionality? Fuck, dude, your idiocy is starting to make my head spin. I think my IQ has dropped ten points just being in the same Internet Tubes as you.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: madprophet Um, no. The Constitution determines membership standards. And, of course, the voters. Would you like to try that again? And how about one "absolute authority" for each branch? With citations, please.

Good lord, man! We are talking about the powers the branches have under the Constitution!

An example of an absolute power enjoyed by a branch? Easy. Congress sets the dates for national elections. The courts have no authority over it. Its in Article I. Should be easy to find.

[BobbyO]

.

Tell me though, how can a law passed by Congress "constitutionally" bar the Courts from their constitutionally appointed jurisdiction? I'd love to hear your scholarly opinion.



Article III, Sec 2 states Congress can make exceptions to the court's authority. The Hamdan decision ought never have been made.

[madprophet]

Quote by: BobbyO Good lord, man! We are talking about the powers the branches have under the Constitution! An example of an absolute power enjoyed by a branch? Easy. Congress sets the dates for national elections. The courts have no authority over it. Its in Article I. Should be easy to find.

Yeeehaaa! Now we're talking! That is some absolute power they've got there! (One might call it an unwanted responsibilty, or even a tedious obligation, if one were not sniffing glue.) One wonders what the founders were thinking giving such power to the Legislature. Why, the brutal tyranny they could unleash with such unrestrained authority to set the dates of elections! What about the Executive? Do they have the ultra-awesome power to set the date for trash pickup? And the Judiciary? I asked for one for each, after all.

But seriously man, where is that in Article One? It might be easy to find in your super-duper kid-fun-power pocket Constitution, but mine doesn't say anything about it. Could you, like, copy and paste it over to this board?

[madprophet]

Quote by: BobbyO . Tell me though, how can a law passed by Congress "constitutionally" bar the Courts from their constitutionally appointed jurisdiction? I'd love to hear your scholarly opinion. Article III, Sec 2 states Congress can make exceptions to the court's authority. The Hamdan decision ought never have been made.

Have you ever even read the Constitution?

[madprophet]

Quote by: BobbyO The Hamdan decision ought never have been made.

Are you sure it's not Hamdi you're wanting to bemoan here? I know you get them confused.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: madprophet Yeeehaaa! Now we're talking! That is some absolute power they've got there! (One might call it an unwanted responsibilty, or even a tedious obligation, if one were not sniffing glue.) One wonders what the founders were thinking giving such power to the Legislature. Why, the brutal tyranny they could unleash with such unrestrained authority to set the dates of elections! What about the Executive? Do they have the ultra-awesome power to set the date for trash pickup? And the Judiciary? I asked for one for each, after all. But seriously man, where is that in Article One? It might be easy to find in your super-duper kid-fun-power pocket Constitution, but mine doesn't say anything about it. Could you, like, copy and paste it over to this board?

It was Article II.

My comments on this thread was an objection to the belief that all powers held by the Executive (and perhaps the legislative) can only be executed pending the approval or inaction of the legislative or the courts. And to object to the claim that the courts have ultimate and absolute authority over the executive (and perhaps the legislative).

Because that is how the critics of the MCA are arguing.

[madprophet]

Okay skippy, look, this is how our government works, no branch has absolute authority over any other branch. It's a big circle of responsibilty called checks and balances. Look it up.

Now, unless you can come up with some better examples to support your claim that the executive has the absolute authority to torture people and hold them in prisons forever without trial or convict them in a kangaroo courts without oversight -- I've asked three times for examples for each branch, and the best you've given me is the Legislature's "absolute authority" to set the dates for Presidential elections -- I'll be dropping this conversation in favor of more fertile intellectual persuits.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: madprophet Okay skippy, look, this is how our government works, no branch has absolute authority over any other branch. It's a big circle of responsibilty called checks and balances. Look it up. Now, unless you can come up with some better examples to support your claim that the executive has the absolute authority to torture people and hold them in prisons forever without trial or convict them in a kangaroo courts without oversight -- I've asked three times for examples for each branch, and the best you've given me is the Legislature's "absolute authority" to set the dates for Presidential elections -- I'll be dropping this conversation in favor of more fertile intellectual persuits.

Yes, congratulations. No branch has absolute power. Yet you stubbornly insist that the judiciary should be granted it.

The MCA law creates millitary courts. the accused are permitted to be represented by counsel, they are allowed access to the evidence against them, to have trials in public (except when the evidence being presented could jeapodise national security) and to appeal convictions to the 5th Court of Appeals (in D.C).

As far as to where branches have absolute authority in the Constitution, read the document. When it says "Congress shall have the power..." or "the president shall have the power..." it means no other branch has that power.