E Pluribus Unum

I'm sure that Laura will be pleased.

Bush likes to advance his previous nominees, so Emilio Garza has a leg up on her there. And he will garner Bush the 'first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice' merit badge.

I am not willing to put my money where my mouth is.

I will say that existing sexual harrassment law encroaches too much on First Amendment rights, and that Roe has serious flaws even in the eyes of liberal scholars. But you can argue that Casey fixed them, if you want.

You want to have a free ranging discussion on abortion law?

Yours,
Wince

"You want to have a free ranging discussion on abortion law?"

I'd far prefer to hijack in favor of a more clear-cut constitutional travesty: "corporate personhood".

Gee, shep, you and I already agreed on that one. I did find out that I agree with Roger B. Taney on one thing, however. That is, as regards suing and being sued in federal courts, corporations may be considered citizens of their state of incorporation. Since I want to sue corporations in federal court on occasion, I'm not unhappy with this limited definition, although I could be convinced to change my mind by a discussion of the legal merits and demerits of that relatively narrow definition.

Yours,
Wince

"Gee, shep, you and I already agreed on that one."

Nifty. How about executive-branch extra-judicial imprisonment of US citizens?

What's executive-branch extra-judicial imprisonment of US citizens? Before we discuss, I want to know if we are discussing the same thing.

Yours,
Wince

This:

"U.S. Can Confine Citizens Without Charges, Court Rules"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html

OK, now Intrade has Priscilla Owens' and Karen Williams' stock price up sharply and Jones' is down.

The three are clustered at the top with bid prices right around 10 cents.

"U.S. Can Confine Citizens Without Charges, Court Rules"

So, apparently, your outrage over constitutional violations is tempered by your partisan fealty (I’m shocked!).

shep,

No, I haven't had the emotional wherewithal to go that deep or to do that research. These discussions with you tend to take a lot out of me.

Do you know (off the top of your head) how we handled pirates who were American citizens, for example? I suspect we strung them up after a military tribunal. If my suspicion is true, I'd like to know why we did things that way before I rush out and give my opinions.

I've been thinking a lot about abortion for over twenty-five years, so I can rattle that stuff off the top of my head. I've been thinking about the second amendment for a similar length of time so that is easy to. Plus I've read a lot about both subjects.

But this one is new and I haven't read much about it. I do know from my Civil War reading that the U.S. can confine citizens without charges. We confined Confederate POW's without charges, even though we were sure they were U.S. citizens.

I suspect you aren't contending that every captured Johnny Reb should have had a trial in a civilian court. Are you?

Discuss away and I'll continue to confine myself to things of which I have tolerably good knowledge.

There are some things which inform my outrage. How many U.S. citizens are we talking about here? 20? 200? And hope many babies have been aborted? Millions? And can we free those U.S. citizens? Can we resurrect the aborted babies?

As regards the second amendment, I'm many orders of magnitude more likely to be confined on a bogus gun charge than I am as an enemy combatant. And as regards the first amendment, I'm many orders of magnitude more likely to be confined on a bogus campaign finance charge than I am as an enemy combatant. You could call that partisanship, or you could call that enlightened self interest.

Yours,
Wince

”As regards the second amendment, I'm many orders of magnitude more likely to be confined on a bogus gun charge than I am as an enemy combatant. And as regards the first amendment, I'm many orders of magnitude more likely to be confined on a bogus campaign finance charge than I am as an enemy combatant. You could call that partisanship, or you could call that enlightened self interest.”

Well, let’s just say that I wouldn’t call it a principled love of the constitution (and I never knew that you were so politically wired or, certainly, involved in illegal firearms).

History is a fine precedent for relativists but it appears I’m a bit more “fundamentalist” about my Constitution. Here’s a quick education for you (and it doesn’t require nearly as much avoidance as ignoring the 2nd amendment pretext, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...”, as much creativity as to find that wealth equals “speech” or as much obtuseness as to suggest that the Constitution permits government to force women to bare children against their will - not unlike forced sterilization.):

The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says this about any person's, right not to be held by government without due process:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;...”

And the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said this:

“[A congressional resolution passed after Sept. 11] "provided the President all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks,...Those powers include the power to detain identified and committed enemies such as Padilla, who associated with al Qaeda . . . who took up arms against this Nation in its war against these enemies, and who entered the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war by attacking American citizens."

I might add, even though no evidence has been presented (or, according the Bush Administration, is required) that Padilla “took up arms” or provided any other danger to the public or gave any aid or comfort to our enemies.

shep,

I said bogus charge. I'm not currently involved in illegal firearms, although I'm one stupid new law away from it at any time. Is anyone considering a law making a semi-automatic .22 LR rifle with a ten-round magazine illegal? Lord knows I don't need to shoot ten squirrels one right after the other or punch ten holes in a paper target very fast. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, right? But it isn't as if our legislative bodies mail out copies of new laws they pass, either.

Being a POW is not a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, or indeed a crime at all. The Fifth Amendment does not cover Prisoners of War. Sorry. Perhaps I am more fundamentalist than you on the Constitution, since I look at the words when I quote it.

I don't believe that the Constitution does the work you want it to do. Myself, I might support a statute requiring that citizens captured outside a battle zone must be shown to be non-criminal enemy combatants in a military tribunal. I would want to hear arguments about whether or not that would violate the separation of powers by usurping the President's authority before being convinced.

Every fundamentalist, whether Constitutional, Biblical or Koranic, pays more attention to some issues than others. This is as it should be, since we are beings limited in time and space. God, OTOH, has the capacity to care about all things equally.

Sorry I'm not as passionate about this one as you are. I don't have the time. I'm happy to delegate the passion to you, however. You seem to be doing an excellent job of it. And I'm happy to continue discussing it with you. But the quality won't necessarily be as high, for the reasons I've given above.

The real reason I'm not passionate about this though, is that the issue is too muddled for me. The Constitution really doesn't say anything about enemy combatants or prisoners of war - just like it doesn't define when a person becomes a person. Since it isn't a Constitutional issue, it's a policy issue. I can only deal with so many of those, too. And I prefer policy issues on which I have clarity, too.

Yours,
Wince

Abdullah Al Muhajir, formerly Jose Padilla, wasn't captured in a battle zone, he was arrested in Chicago after a flight from Pakistan by way of Switzerland.

Rosemary,

Yes, I know. Let me be more specific, to show that I know. Restated: And I might support a statute (passed by Congress) requiring that citizens captured outside a battle zone (including perhaps, Padilla, although one could argue that in this war the U.S. is a battle zone. After all, the battle of the Twin Towers was here) must be shown to be non-criminal enemy combatants in a military tribunal.

Is that better?

Yours,
Wince

"Sorry I'm not as passionate about this one as you are."

Dude, I totally see what you mean. Compared to making sure you can have a 10-clip or defending the right of wealthy interests to buy legislation with campaign money, how could anyone get passionate about preventing one branch of government from declaring the right to arrest and indefinitely jail any citizen it says is not to covered by the 5th Amendment, without any proof or due process.

Republicanism has given you one twisted sense of priorities my friend.

My understanding is that the US Constitution doesn't limit the protection of rights to US citizens.

Am I wrong?

You are right, although I believe criminals lose many of their rights once convicted.

"Am I wrong?"

You are correct. As I understand it, "person" is generally construed to mean anyone on U.S. soil. But, in this case, we are talking about a bona fide, born-in-America, U.S. citizen.

I believe criminals lose many of their rights once convicted.

As I understand it, that varies from state to state. For example -- convicted felons cannot vote in some states, but can in others.

shep,

This is why I hate discussing things with you. You won't talk about the issues. You have to assign blame. And you always blame me. I don't have time for that.

Next time, why don't you write about the issue. Lincoln imprisoned thousands of Confederate soldiers as prisoners of war without any proof or due process. And he was right to do so. Do you want the Supreme Court to set a precedent that requires legal trials for thousands of prisoners of war the next time we have a Civil War? See, it gets muddled fast.

But you aren't interested in discussing the issue. You are interested in calling your opponents a*holes. What makes you different from Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage?

And you wonder why you got kicked off Dean's blog. Is it still a mystery to you?

See ya.

Yours,
Wince

"But you aren't interested in discussing the issue. You are interested in calling your opponents a*holes."

My Dear Wince,

First of all, I never called anyone an “assh*le”. I merely suggested that you’re constitutional priorities are misplaced as a result of your partisan ideology. It’s been quite some time since I would have expected most rational, moral people to see the light about the post-modern Republican Party but am forced by the numbers (as well as my experience with people like you) to conclude that good people can still be honestly mistaken in their beliefs about Republicans and Democrats.

Secondly, refusing to be drawn into bottomless, relativistic non sequiturs, is the exact opposite of avoiding the issue. You can avoid the uncomfortable facts about this administrations naked assault on our most important constitution liberty protections by finding comfort in Barbary pirates or Civil War history but I prefer to stick to the facts of the matter.

Your separate conclusion that the President can simply sidestep the Constitution by naming a U.S. citizen arrested (doing nothing) on U.S. soil, a “Prisoner of War”, is also specious. For one thing, Padilla has been held as an “enemy combatant” which is an “Unlawful Combatant”, ineligible for “Prisoner of War” status.

Again, your expressed outrage over certain lesser (or even nonexistent) constitutional violations, in stark contrast to your lack of “passion” about this serious and clear abrogation, exactly reflects hypocritical and dangerous Republican ideology. Coincidence, I think not.

PS Again, I wasn't kicked off of Dean's blog, I just decided to make better use of my time (judging by my last visit there, I'm not alone). Don't be the last one off the ship.

Don't be the last one off the ship.

You're right. Blogging is a waste of time better spent with my family.

Yours,
Wince