AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Your remarks about executive privilege are equally uninformed. Separation of powers is nowhere mentioned in the constitution--it can only be inferred from the first three articles. Executive privilege is neither granted nor denied by the constitution.

From U. S. Constitution-dot-net's "Things that are not in the constitution" section:

Executive Privilege

Executive privilege is a right to withhold information from the legislative and judicial branches by the President or by one of the executive departments. There is question of whether the right exists at all, a question that has lingered since the very first President, George Washington, asserted executive privilege in his very first term. Most times, executive privilege is asserted for purported national security reasons. Washington, however, asserted the privilege when the House requested details of the Jay Treaty - his rationale was that the House has no role in treaty-making and hence no right to request the documents. In modern times, Bill Clinton refused to simply comply with an order to appear before a grand jury, and instead negotiated terms under which he would appear. Richard Nixon's is the most infamous use of executive privilege, and while the Supreme Court, in U.S. v Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), recognized that there exists a need for some secrecy in the executive branch, but that the secrecy cannot be absolute. The Court ordered Nixon to turn over tapes and documents that a special prosecutor had subpoenaed. More recently, the minutes and records of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force were requested and denied based on executive privilege. This case made its way to the Supreme Court, where the Court deflected the case and sent it back to a lower court for further adjudication.

I highly recommend U. S. Constitution-dot-net to anyone wishing to study the document. It is not unquestionably authoritative, and the articles are brief and intended for the non-specialist. Nevertheless, it is one of the best online resources of its type. Click here for the single page, indexed version of the constitution at U. S. Constitution-dot-net.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

The writers of the Constitution didn't even think the 'common person' should vote, let alone understand the legal underpinnings of our nation. Hell, the common person couldn't even read back when it was written, or at least many of them could not.

You have a distorted view of history and no faith in the common man. Confirms my opinion of you as a snob.

The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the "Committee of Stile and Arrangement". This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order. On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Gouverneur Morris.

The newly minted document began with a grand flourish " the Preamble, the Constitution's raison d'être. It holds in its words the hopes and dreams of the delegates to the convention, a justification for what they had done. Its words are familiar to us today, but because of time and context, the words are not always easy to follow. The remainder of this Topic Page will examine each sentence in the Preamble and explain it for today's audience.

We the People of the United States

Quote:

The Framers were an elite group " among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. But they knew that they were trying to forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the common man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This first part of the Preamble speaks to the common man. It puts into writing, as clear as day, the notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was not handed down by a god or by a king " it was created by the people.
Quote:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pre.html

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I've never said that a right to privacy does determine the legality of a behavior.

Thats the point. But the Roe v Wade decision did just that, didn't it?

Quote:

But it does determine the actions which the police can legally take in an attempt to apprehend someone in an illegal activity or in the possession of contraband.

You can bet that nothing i've written supports your argument. I don't see any evidence that you have an argument, because your remarks have to do with claims about illegal activities, and abortion is not illegal.

And the supposed reason abortion cannot be made illegal is the trumped up reason, "right to privacy."

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

You are hopelessly missing the point, while you keep reinforcing my argument. As I said, and you keep pointing out, right to privacy or protection against unreasonable search and seizure does not determine legality of a behavior.

The right to privacy precludes the State from making decisions affecting a woman's body.

There is the logical fallacy of Roe v Wade based upon the right to privacy. The government has all kinds of laws about what a woman can do with her body, including prostitution, drug use, etc. Or what men can do with their bodies, for that matter. The argument is ridiculous on its face.

Quote:

Certainly you don't want the Obama government deciding whether or not you should have an operation done, based on their opinion of the morality of that operation; do you?

If not, then you support the rationale that makes abortion legal in America, plain and simple.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, you view abortion like an appendectomy, or whatever. I have heard abortionists believe it, but I can hardly believe people are that calloused or cruel toward life, but you confirm it.

Your point about Obama deciding what operation I have is stupid, and besides he intends to do just that, through his health care plan, which will inevitably lead to rationing of health care, or what the government tells me I can do or not do, medically.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You're hopelessly out of your depth here. It does not matter how illegal any activity is, nor the possession of any contraband, the police cannot enter a private residence without obtaining a search warrant, or unless they are in pursuit of someone fleeing the scene of a crime. If they do, any evidence they acquire in that manner is not admissible in court.

Federal Appeals Court Rules Police Can Search Without Warrant

Quote:

In a March 24 opinion, the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has ruled that police do not need an arrest or search warrant to conduct a search if the search is a "protective sweep" to ensure the safety of officers. The ruling builds on a 1990 US Supreme Court ruling, Maryland v. Buie, which gave the constitutional okay to "protective sweep" searches conducted to ensure the safety of officers during an arrest. Under the 5th Circuit's ruling in USA v. Gould, such searches may be legally made without a search warrant or an arrest.

1 Reply

OBAMA IS ACTING IN VIOLATION OF USA LAW TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVES WHICH VIOLATE USA LAW

HOW SHALL WE SAVE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC?
The solution for how to save our Constitutional Republic is not to repeatedly sound alarms and repeatedly give the reasons for those alarms. The solution is to impeach President Obama, or remove him in a special election. He is leading the transfer of the wealth of those persons and organizations who lawfully earned it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.

Nowhere in the Constitution"not even in Article I. Section 8.--has the President, the Congress, or the Judiciary been granted the power to make such wealth transfers. Any branch of the federal government that makes such wealth transfers violates the "supreme law of the land," and their "oath or affirmation to support this Constitution""Article VI. Making such wealth transfers is exercising "powers not delegated to the United States" and therefore violates the Constitution"Amendment X. Making such wealth transfers is an act of treason against the United States and is "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" "Article III. Section 3.

We have to convince those in the House of Representatives, who do not violate their oaths to support the Constitution, to make a motion to impeach President Obama. Failure--or excessive delay--to take this necessary first step will guarantee the transformation of our country from a Constitutional Republic to a dictatorship. Or, we have to convince two-thirds of the state legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution to permit more than half the state legislatures to call for a special election of President and Congress.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article II
Section 1.
...
The President …
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
…
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Setanta wrote:

You're hopelessly out of your depth here. It does not matter how illegal any activity is, nor the possession of any contraband, the police cannot enter a private residence without obtaining a search warrant, or unless they are in pursuit of someone fleeing the scene of a crime. If they do, any evidence they acquire in that manner is not admissible in court.

Federal Appeals Court Rules Police Can Search Without Warrant

Quote:
In a March 24 opinion, the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has ruled that police do not need an arrest or search warrant to conduct a search if the search is a "protective sweep" to ensure the safety of officers. The ruling builds on a 1990 US Supreme Court ruling, Maryland v. Buie, which gave the constitutional okay to "protective sweep" searches conducted to ensure the safety of officers during an arrest. Under the 5th Circuit's ruling in USA v. Gould, such searches may be legally made without a search warrant or an arrest.

Incorrect. The police have to be in the process of making an arrest for that to come into play; that is to say, they have to have a pre-existing reason to enter the building in the first place. They cannot simply enter buildings and search for evidence at will. A 'protective sweep' refers to situations in which there is a large percentage chance of danger being posed to the officers; this excludes all but a few situations.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to bring that up, however.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Cyclops, you view abortion like an appendectomy, or whatever. I have heard abortionists believe it, but I can hardly believe people are that calloused or cruel toward life, but you confirm it.

Until a fetus is viable - that is to say, until it can live outside the womb - it isn't alive; it is a part of the mother's body.

Quote:

Your point about Obama deciding what operation I have is stupid, and besides he intends to do just that, through his health care plan, which will inevitably lead to rationing of health care, or what the government tells me I can do or not do, medically.

But you support that, right? After all, you don't believe you have a right to that sort of privacy. Just like you believe women don't have the right to make abortion decisions themselves. Right?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Setanta wrote:

You're hopelessly out of your depth here. It does not matter how illegal any activity is, nor the possession of any contraband, the police cannot enter a private residence without obtaining a search warrant, or unless they are in pursuit of someone fleeing the scene of a crime. If they do, any evidence they acquire in that manner is not admissible in court.

Federal Appeals Court Rules Police Can Search Without Warrant

Quote:
In a March 24 opinion, the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has ruled that police do not need an arrest or search warrant to conduct a search if the search is a "protective sweep" to ensure the safety of officers. The ruling builds on a 1990 US Supreme Court ruling, Maryland v. Buie, which gave the constitutional okay to "protective sweep" searches conducted to ensure the safety of officers during an arrest. Under the 5th Circuit's ruling in USA v. Gould, such searches may be legally made without a search warrant or an arrest.

Incorrect. The police have to be in the process of making an arrest for that to come into play; that is to say, they have to have a pre-existing reason to enter the building in the first place. They cannot simply enter buildings and search for evidence at will. A 'protective sweep' refers to situations in which there is a large percentage chance of danger being posed to the officers; this excludes all but a few situations.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to bring that up, however.

Cycloptichorn

You are correct that the police must be justified in entering the premises in the first instance. The police must be LAWFULLY on the premises. In the Gould case, the police had the occupant's CONSENT to enter the home. Consent is an exception to the warrant requirement. An occupant's consent for an officer to enter the occupant's home, however, does not give an officer the right to conduct a "protective sweep." The officer must have a reasonable articulable suspicion of danger and the sweep must be limited in scope and duration.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Incorrect. The police have to be in the process of making an arrest for that to come into play; that is to say, they have to have a pre-existing reason to enter the building in the first place. They cannot simply enter buildings and search for evidence at will. A 'protective sweep' refers to situations in which there is a large percentage chance of danger being posed to the officers; this excludes all but a few situations.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to bring that up, however.

Cycloptichorn

That argument is beside the point anyway, warrant or no warrant, right to privacy is not a reason for an action to be legal or illegal, it only affects the way law enforcement can investigate and arrest those that broke the law. But determining criminality does not relate to right to privacy, as the reasoning is used in abortion. I think the examples of drug use and prostitution are but two of numerous examples of something being a crime, whether in private or not. This seems so abundantly obvious that it is mindboggling that the Supreme Court can stray so far afield. The reason, I think, is they have pre-conceived notions that they will find an argument to fit, no matter how wrong it may be. That is the real danger of this new potential appointee of Obama's, she is really in left field from what I have gleaned so far.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie - you exist so far in the right field you don't know where the left field is. Even if you could see center field it would be the left field to you.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I think the examples of drug use and prostitution are but two of numerous examples of something being a crime, whether in private or not.

Drug use is not illegal, Okie. Only possession, sale, and transport of drugs is illegal. You have the right to use whatever you like - though you can be held responsible for actions stemming from this which are deleterious to society or other people.

Quote:

This seems so abundantly obvious that it is mindboggling that the Supreme Court can stray so far afield.

As the SC is made up of some of the finest legal minds, who put a lot of time into studying these issues; and you are an amateur on these issues, and obviously far from one of the finest legal minds, you should consider the possibility that they are correct and it is YOU who has the pre-conceived notion, Okie.

Quote:

That is the real danger of this new potential appointee of Obama's, she is really in left field from what I have gleaned so far.

Okie, to you, every single person to the left of McCain is 'really in left field.' Your perspective is a little off.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Until a fetus is viable - that is to say, until it can live outside the womb - it isn't alive; it is a part of the mother's body.

I personally know a man that was born at 5 1/2 months. After struggling for his very life as an infant, he has turned out to be a straight A student and a college graduate. So, your reasoning would alter the laws on abortion for sure. Medical science has gotten better at preserving the lives and health of the pre-mature births. And even before being able to survive outside the body, the fetus is alive. Even after being born, a baby cannot survive without help, so I think your reasoning has many flaws. I don't have all the answers on this issue, but I do believe it is absolutely terrible to abort a baby after 4 or 5 months.

Quote:

Quote:

Your point about Obama deciding what operation I have is stupid, and besides he intends to do just that, through his health care plan, which will inevitably lead to rationing of health care, or what the government tells me I can do or not do, medically.

But you support that, right? After all, you don't believe you have a right to that sort of privacy. Just like you believe women don't have the right to make abortion decisions themselves. Right?

Cycloptichorn

The reason I don't believe the woman has all the right is that I believe a baby is not part of her body as a body organ is, it is another human being. It also has a father. It has life. I think life is a gift from God, not to be trashed, to be killed or murdered. What you think, I can't explain.

2 Replies

@okie,

Cool okie. I understand your thoughts on why you won't have an abortion.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

the police cannot enter a private residence without obtaining a search warrant, or unless they are in pursuit of someone fleeing the scene of a crime. If they do, any evidence they acquire in that manner is not admissible in court.

Thats not exactly true.
If you invite them in, and they see something illegal IN PLAIN SIGHT they dont need a warrant because you invited them in.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

But determining criminality does not relate to right to privacy . . . .

You fail to understand that the State may NOT criminalize PRIVATE conduct unless doing so serves a legitimate, important, or compelling State interest. You and your wife have a right secured by the Constitution to engage in consensual sex in the privacy of your home. Do you agree or disagree with that? Or do you want the government omnipresent in your bedroom?

Likewise, you and your wife each have an individual right to determine your own procreative destinies. After all, why should the State have power over individual procreation? If your wife does not want to carry your seed to fruition, neither you nor the State have the power to prevent her from terminating the unwanted pregnancy. However, if your wife continues the pregnancy to the point where the potential life she is carrying becomes viable, then and only then does the State have a sufficient interest in potential life to prohibit abortion except when a doctor finds abortion necessary to protect your wife's life or health.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Incorrect. The police have to be in the process of making an arrest for that to come into play; that is to say, they have to have a pre-existing reason to enter the building in the first place. They cannot simply enter buildings and search for evidence at will. A 'protective sweep' refers to situations in which there is a large percentage chance of danger being posed to the officers; this excludes all but a few situations.

If the police are making an arrest in an apartment building, they can, under the "protective sweep" ruling, search other units in that building without a warrant.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As the SC is made up of some of the finest legal minds, who put a lot of time into studying these issues; and you are an amateur on these issues, and obviously far from one of the finest legal minds, you should consider the possibility that they are correct and it is YOU who has the pre-conceived notion, Okie.
Cycloptichorn

I agree, I am an amateur, however, there are those on the Supreme Court that I do agree with, but on some issues they are in the minority. I believe they are the correct legal minds, and so you should also consider the very real possibility, I think surely, that you are wrong. I am sure as well that the Supreme Court does not always agree with you, and I am equally sure that the Supreme Court is not correct 100% of the time, that would be imposssible. I have also heard that even some liberals think Roe v Wade was based on bad reasoning, bad arguments.

Can we finally move on to other subjects?

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I personally know a man that was born at 5 1/2 months. After struggling for his very life as an infant, he has turned out to be a straight A student and a college graduate. So, your reasoning would alter the laws on abortion for sure. Medical science has gotten better at preserving the lives and health of the pre-mature births. And even before being able to survive outside the body, the fetus is alive. Even after being born, a baby cannot survive without help, so I think your reasoning has many flaws. I don't have all the answers on this issue, but I do believe it is absolutely terrible to abort a baby after 4 or 5 months.

The law disagrees with you as to what 'alive' and 'viable' means. I can't sum it up any better than that.

Quote:

The reason I don't believe the woman has all the right is that I believe a baby is not part of her body as a body organ is, it is another human being. It also has a father. It has life. I think life is a gift from God, not to be trashed, to be killed or murdered. What you think, I can't explain.

Unless of course you suspect them of plotting against your country, in which case, you could give two shits if they were killed or murdered.

As I personally don't believe in God, I also don't believe much in the sanctity of life of any sort; it seems mostly to me to be a defensive tool created by the minds of men in order to justify their continued existence in a harsh world.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Until a fetus is viable - that is to say, until it can live outside the womb - it isn't alive; it is a part of the mother's body.

I asked you to clarify this once before, and you dodged the question.
But since you brought it up again, I'll ask again.

Since we know that a fetus, if born at 7 months, can survive outside the womb.
So, according to your argument, it is viable and has rights.
Now, if that same fetus is carried to term, are you actually saying that it has no rights?
Are you saying that its also a matter of when a baby is born?

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know