EPTElse, we'd have another "swiftboat". Americans can be stupid that way and the media will just feed the frenzy.
President Obama Releases Long Form Birth Cert. - Page 27
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
Else, we'd have another "swiftboat". Americans can be stupid that way and the media will just feed the frenzy. | ||
|
Uncultured
United States1340 Posts
And now we're told it does exist, and he's had it all along and just felt like not showing it in the face of all that skepticism? | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On April 29 2011 10:51 TheTenthDoc wrote: As far as I know that bold statement isn't anywhere in the actual constitution, and I'm fairly certain that nothing that is unconstitutional can ever be lawful regardless of conditions (unless one isn't a strict constitutionalist). The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, after all. And Lincoln was detaining plenty of people he recognized as American citizens. The CIA has done the same; they've also done plenty of unreasonable search and seizures. It's a quote from Lincoln. "I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation." Article 1 section 9: "the privilege of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." 1863 Prize cases, no declaration of war needed for executive hostilities. It's a matter of fact that wartime greatly expands the power of the executive. Moreover, the Courts have no enforcement mechanism. Merryman in 1861 illustrates this. Traditionally, constitutional rights can only be suspended in wartime if the civil courts are inoperable (trying Confederate officers in Alabama in a civilian court would be pointless), and Lincoln tried to extend that principle to cover much of the North during the American civil war. Likewise, military tribunals and military courts in wartime operate and convict people based on much weaker evidence than is allowed in a civilian court (hearsay is usually admitted as evidence in military trials of dangerous suspects) To put it simply, nothing in the Constitution is absolute, and it cannot permit its own destruction merely to maintain the rights listed therein. Nothing in the constitution is truly absolute so that an adherence to some of the rights would allow the nation to collapse. Ex Parte Milligan address this as well, martial law cannot be imposed based on the threat of an invasion, but only if the invasion is actual and deposes the civil administration. Ex parte Quirin as well. so there are limits As for your mentioning of the CIA detaining people not in wartime, the "war on terror" qualifies as much. All an executive has to do to claim war powers since Lincoln has been to frame the conflict as inherently defensive. War is a magic word for expanding executive power | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On April 29 2011 10:58 Uncultured wrote: The thing that irks me is that we were told for years now that there is no long-form birth certificate for people born in Hawaii. And now we're told it does exist, and he's had it all along and just felt like not showing it in the face of all that skepticism? You obviously were only listening to the birthers. All Hawaiians get a long-form birth certificate. The issue was that Hawaiian law (lol state's rights!) prohibited the release of the original long-form certificate for EVERYONE. The only official document Hawaii releases is the short-form certificate. | ||
|
Uncultured
United States1340 Posts
On April 29 2011 11:12 Adila wrote: You obviously were only listening to the birthers. All Hawaiians get a long-form birth certificate. The issue was that Hawaiian law (lol state's rights!) prohibited the release of the original long-form certificate for EVERYONE. The only official document Hawaii releases is the short-form certificate. Got a source on that? | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
![[image loading]](http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1240/foxbirfcertifct.jpg) lololol, fox took it down pretty quick though. | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html Have fun. | ||
|
BloodNinja
United States2791 Posts
[sarcasm] But that is a government website. THEY ARE PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!!!!!![/sarcasm] I swear this thread has just gone in circles. Every 5-6 pages it resets itself and we go back to square one. I am just sad that it came to this in the end. Even still releasing the document will do nothing to stop the conspiracy theories. | ||
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
Surely with all the problems going on right now, the US has more important things to worry about? And Donald Trump getting involved is a little bit hilarious - not sure how people could take him seriously. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On April 29 2011 11:04 Elegy wrote: It's a quote from Lincoln. "I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation." Article 1 section 9: "the privilege of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." 1863 Prize cases, no declaration of war needed for executive hostilities. It's a matter of fact that wartime greatly expands the power of the executive. Moreover, the Courts have no enforcement mechanism. Merryman in 1861 illustrates this. Traditionally, constitutional rights can only be suspended in wartime if the civil courts are inoperable (trying Confederate officers in Alabama in a civilian court would be pointless), and Lincoln tried to extend that principle to cover much of the North during the American civil war. Likewise, military tribunals and military courts in wartime operate and convict people based on much weaker evidence than is allowed in a civilian court (hearsay is usually admitted as evidence in military trials of dangerous suspects) To put it simply, nothing in the Constitution is absolute, and it cannot permit its own destruction merely to maintain the rights listed therein. Nothing in the constitution is truly absolute so that an adherence to some of the rights would allow the nation to collapse. Ex Parte Milligan address this as well, martial law cannot be imposed based on the threat of an invasion, but only if the invasion is actual and deposes the civil administration. Ex parte Quirin as well. so there are limits As for your mentioning of the CIA detaining people not in wartime, the "war on terror" qualifies as much. All an executive has to do to claim war powers since Lincoln has been to frame the conflict as inherently defensive. War is a magic word for expanding executive power Thank you for that information! I don't remember the articles closely enough. But Lincoln, just like Jackson, basically said "I'm doing it because I believe it necessary and damned with the courts." That doesn't mean it was the lawful thing to do. From a logical standpoint it was necessary, but not particularly lawful (the president cannot declare what is lawful and what isn't, his job is enforcing the existing law). But from the perspective of many of the people that are so adamant about the birth certificate, the entire Constitution is absolute. Once someone recognizes that it isn't, they immediately realize the birth certificate issue doesn't matter at all. Even if Obama isn't a citizen, this clamor was a drain to the nation. Perhaps not to the point of allowing the nation to collapse, but once you admit the Constitution isn't absolute there's no reason to maintain parts that have a net negative effect. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On April 29 2011 11:04 Elegy wrote: It's a quote from Lincoln. "I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation." Article 1 section 9: "the privilege of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." 1863 Prize cases, no declaration of war needed for executive hostilities. It's a matter of fact that wartime greatly expands the power of the executive. Moreover, the Courts have no enforcement mechanism. Merryman in 1861 illustrates this. Traditionally, constitutional rights can only be suspended in wartime if the civil courts are inoperable (trying Confederate officers in Alabama in a civilian court would be pointless), and Lincoln tried to extend that principle to cover much of the North during the American civil war. Likewise, military tribunals and military courts in wartime operate and convict people based on much weaker evidence than is allowed in a civilian court (hearsay is usually admitted as evidence in military trials of dangerous suspects) To put it simply, nothing in the Constitution is absolute, and it cannot permit its own destruction merely to maintain the rights listed therein. Nothing in the constitution is truly absolute so that an adherence to some of the rights would allow the nation to collapse. Ex Parte Milligan address this as well, martial law cannot be imposed based on the threat of an invasion, but only if the invasion is actual and deposes the civil administration. Ex parte Quirin as well. so there are limits Sure. However, the next part does not logically follow: On April 29 2011 11:04 Elegy wrote: As for your mentioning of the CIA detaining people not in wartime, the "war on terror" qualifies as much. All an executive has to do to claim war powers since Lincoln has been to frame the conflict as inherently defensive. War is a magic word for expanding executive power The federal government doesn't have the authority to abolish habeas corpus in a situation that does not entail rebellion or invasion. The war on terror does not concern either a rebellion nor an invasion in the United States. Lincoln was justified in abolishing habeas corpus because the Civil War was a rebellion. The CIA is not justified in many of its practices today. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On April 29 2011 13:28 TheTenthDoc wrote: Thank you for that information! I don't remember the articles closely enough. But Lincoln, just like Jackson, basically said "I'm doing it because I believe it necessary and damned with the courts." That doesn't mean it was the lawful thing to do. From a logical standpoint it was necessary, but not particularly lawful (the president cannot declare what is lawful and what isn't, his job is enforcing the existing law). But from the perspective of many of the people that are so adamant about the birth certificate, the entire Constitution is absolute. Once someone recognizes that it isn't, they immediately realize the birth certificate issue doesn't matter at all. Even if Obama isn't a citizen, this clamor was a drain to the nation. Perhaps not to the point of allowing the nation to collapse, but once you admit the Constitution isn't absolute there's no reason to maintain parts that have a net negative effect. Yes, although I tend to think of it as rather arbitrary. For example, the warmaking power of the government has been transferred almost completely to the executive, barring an exercise of the War Powers Act. Constitutionally (in a strict sense), the Founders would be appalled to look at the history of presidential foreign military interventions without formal Congressional declarations of hostilities. However, as (to my knowledge) the War Powers Act has never been cause for a suit, the judiciary has never made a ruling as to the constitutionality of that particular Act. So while we might think the executive tends to act unconstitutionally in many cases, the extension of powers given to the executive in war time (and, by the Prize cases, "war" mustn't be formally declared between two parties to allow such an extension) is, in a way, an agreement amongst the branches of government that the executive must adopt more powers than ordinarily accepted, even to the point of breaching constitutional protections (questionable habeas corpus for enemy combatants until Boumediene, Japanese-American internment based loosely and in part on the principle of criminal syndicalism [see Whitney v California] etc). Lincoln with habeas corpus, Jackson with the removal of Indians, etc, are all instances of Presidents essentially testing the boundaries of their constitutional limitations. Lincoln, at least, could very well argue his actions were constitutional, given Article 1 section 9. Surely in the civil war he was faced with the very real possibility of the disintegration of the Union. Jackson not so much, as he told the court to go fuck themselves. Likewise, FDR did much the same with Quirin. Another way to think of it is that, in wartime, the executive is allowed to extend the limits of his constitutional powers beyond what would normally be considered legal if the state of war did not exist. The problem, however, is when the executive uses the state of war principle in obviously vague terms. We've declared a war on terror, but terror is a means to an end, not a particular enemy. How does one defeat terror? If we declared war on guerrilla warfare, when would it end? It's an indeterminate declaration that breeds indeterminate ends. Moreover, when will the war on terror ever end? How can it? If you argue that there is an existential threat to the United States, which is grounds for the extension of the powers of the executive, how do you reconcile that with the appropriation of wartime powers? Ex parte Endo decision puts it nicely: "Wartime measures are to be interpreted as intending the greatest possible accommodation between the Constitutional liberties of the citizen and the exigencies of war." But from the perspective of many of the people that are so adamant about the birth certificate, the entire Constitution is absolute. Once someone recognizes that it isn't, they immediately realize the birth certificate issue doesn't matter at all. Even if Obama isn't a citizen, this clamor was a drain to the nation. Perhaps not to the point of allowing the nation to collapse, but once you admit the Constitution isn't absolute there's no reason to maintain parts that have a net negative effect. If the Constitution is truly, completely, and utterly absolute, the First Amendment offers an interesting case. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Obviously, that isn't true, and it couldn't be construed to ever mean that "no law" ever meant "NO LAW". Taken completely textually, Congress should be powerless to stop what we would consider to be harassment, obscenity, even bribery. Literally, Congress has no authority to ever, in any way, touch the freedom of speech. So clearly it doesn't really mean "no law". But my point was that, in times of war, the executive always appropriates additional powers and extends existing ones to the point of, as seen and discussed, violates Constitutional rights given the necessity of the times. However, little of this applies to the birth certificate issue, as it has little to nothing to do with the wartime appropriation of powers. Such a discussion is much more suited to a freedom of speech or possibly religion issue, not birth certificates. The federal government doesn't have the authority to abolish habeas corpus in a situation that does not entail rebellion or invasion. The war on terror does not concern either a rebellion nor an invasion in the United States. Lincoln was justified in abolishing habeas corpus because the Civil War was a rebellion. The CIA is not justified in many of its practices today. But that's the question isn't it? Invasion in a traditional sense has long since failed to mean what the word meant originally. defense of american lives/business interests/allies is what that has evolved to mean Defense of the country has been used, time and time again, to use military force by the executive If military force can be used at the executive's discretion to act to defend the nation, it follows that, in times of war (prize cases), habeas corpus can be suspended for enemy combatants, hence why I have repeatedly mentioned the Boumediene case for its significance. I believe it all boils down to the executive saying "we have to do this for the nation, and we can do this because its a time of war and the US is under attack" and the opponents (including the courts), saying that habeas corpus cannot be denied to aliens. Moreover, until Boumediene, it was questionable whether enemy combatants in these circumstances had that right at all You can say the CIA is not justified in many of its practices (certainly true), but legally it's a muddy area with a lack of enforcement ability by the judiciary and the necessity on the part of the federal government to make sure that the people in Gitmo, at least some of whom are very dangerous, aren't released just because the government can't prove conclusively their guilt. | ||
|
lIlIlIlIlIlI
Korea (South)3851 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On April 29 2011 14:36 randomKo_Orean wrote: What is wrong with you? What more do you guys want? I honestly believe that Obama was born 100% white, he would not be having this problem. I really believe that. What landmass you're born on is especially important to idiots if you look exotic! | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On April 29 2011 14:27 Elegy wrote: If the Constitution is truly, completely, and utterly absolute, the First Amendment offers an interesting case. It isn't, and no one is suggesting that the Constitution is absolute. On April 29 2011 14:27 Elegy wrote: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Obviously, that isn't true, and it couldn't be construed to ever mean that "no law" ever meant "NO LAW". Taken completely textually, Congress should be powerless to stop what we would consider to be harassment, obscenity, even bribery. Literally, Congress has no authority to ever, in any way, touch the freedom of speech. So clearly it doesn't really mean "no law". Again, no one is saying it is completely absolute. However, it's important to note that Congress can't really abridge freedom of speech unless it conforms to Supreme Court precedent on the interpretation of freedom of speech as outlined in the Constitution, and to protect other rights of citizens that come into conflict with certain types of "speech." (such statements aren't really classified as speech if they infringe upon the rights of others) Of course, the Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution, and on the First Amendment, it has done just that many times. There aren't any federal laws currently (that I know of) that are unconstitutional by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution. On April 29 2011 14:27 Elegy wrote: But my point was that, in times of war, the executive always appropriates additional powers and extends existing ones to the point of, as seen and discussed, violates Constitutional rights given the necessity of the times. That's the point. There's no conflict with other parts of the Constitution when the executive government decides to eschew habeas corpus, for example. Thus, it's unconstitutional (unlike censoring slander, on the other hand, because slander harms individuals). On April 29 2011 14:27 Elegy wrote: However, little of this applies to the birth certificate issue, as it has little to nothing to do with the wartime appropriation of powers. Such a discussion is much more suited to a freedom of speech or possibly religion issue, not birth certificates. Sure. On April 29 2011 14:27 Elegy wrote: But that's the question isn't it? Invasion in a traditional sense has long since failed to mean what the word meant originally. defense of american lives/business interests/allies is what that has evolved to mean No it hasn't. "The war on terrorism" has never been identified with the term "invasion" at any time in the past or the present. It HAS been identified with, however, taking the war to the enemy in their territory before it comes here. The CIA does not ignore habeas corpus because the United States is currently being invaded. The idea itself is ludicrous. And it's not a question. I don't understand how you can consider "defense of the nation through preemptive action in a foreign country" to be synonymous with the definition of "invasion." On April 29 2011 14:27 Elegy wrote: Defense of the country has been used, time and time again, to use military force by the executive If military force can be used at the executive's discretion to act to defend the nation, it follows that, in times of war (prize cases), habeas corpus can be suspended for enemy combatants, hence why I have repeatedly mentioned the Boumediene case for its significance. Again, false. Every time that the executive branch has used it's "power" in such ways to "defend the nation" by eschewing habeas corpus or whatever other rights as outlined in the Constitution, it has violated the Constitution. Habeas corpus CANNOT be suspended for U.S. citizens even in times of war (only in times of invasion/rebellion) and so a lot of recent actions by the executive branch have been very questionable. Lastly, while the issue is still quite vague, all declarations of war without Congressional approval are unconstitutional. It's now a very unclear issue, but that's simply how it is. On April 29 2011 14:27 Elegy wrote: I believe it all boils down to the executive saying "we have to do this for the nation, and we can do this because its a time of war and the US is under attack" and the opponents (including the courts), saying that habeas corpus cannot be denied to aliens. Moreover, until Boumediene, it was questionable whether enemy combatants in these circumstances had that right at all Except, habeas corpus is not being denied just for non-U.S. citizen enemy combatants. It's also being denied for U.S. citizens. At this point it doesn't matter, since by Boumediene the United States can't deny habeas corpus to enemy combatants in the United States/Guantanamo. On April 29 2011 14:27 Elegy wrote: You can say the CIA is not justified in many of its practices (certainly true), but legally it's a muddy area with a lack of enforcement ability by the judiciary and the necessity on the part of the federal government to make sure that the people in Gitmo, at least some of whom are very dangerous, aren't released just because the government can't prove conclusively their guilt. It isn't legally muddy. As per court precedent and per the Constitution, many of the executive branch's actions have been unconstitutional. I agree that the courts lack the power for oversight at this stage, but that doesn't magically justify what the executive branch does. | ||
|
EvilTeletubby
Baltimore, USA22258 Posts
| ||
| ||
