@Drnaline,
Drnaline;37008 wrote:That is legislating from the bench, SCOTUS does not make law, period. That is unConstitutional.
Article III clearly gives SCOTUS judicial review over the Constitution and federal statutes. No, it isn't unConstitutional.
Quote:And what right have they taken away from you is what you still haven't explained? Right here right now? You don't have one example of what has been taken? You keep pointing to some right to privacy but when i ask where in the Constitution you beat around the bush because you know it's not there. You probably believe separation of church and state in the there too? Take my word for it, it ain't.
Thus far I have not had my rights infringed upon, but the idea that they can if they so desire is unAmerican. I know the words "separation of church and state" aren't in the Constitution, but it does forbid laws establishing religion.
Quote:I thought we were talking rights, now you want to change to LAW? In any case, show me where it says the Constitution applys to those only in our borders? I can't take your word for it because you thought there is a right to privacy in the Constitution.
The Constitution provides and denies POWERS to the federal and state governments, and provides RIGHTS to the people. The Constitution obviously doesn't apply overseas, so we know it stops at our borders. You accept all or none of the Constitution, so to say that only citizens recieve the rights of which you speak is to say that the Constitution, and thus all federal laws and jurisdiction do not apply to visiting or residing non-citizens.
Quote:So in your opinion if you think it's not legal it must be illegal? What does the Constitution have to say about it? Nothing. If something doesn't make it legal that don't automatically made it illegal.
Amendment X says that all powers not given to the federal government EXPRESSLY in the Constitution are forbidden to it. So yeah, if it aint in the Constitution, they can't do it, end of story.
Quote:WE can prove Sklinton lied, you need to prove intent to get Bush. If you guys had it he would already be gone.
I didn't mention Bush, god you're defensive. My point was (and still is) that just because the government DOES it, doesn't make it legal. Clinton lied under oath and he was rightfully impeached for it, this is a GOOD EXAMPLE of the government being held to the same standard as the rest of us.
Quote:So you think they were forced to vote under threat? Didn't they just giver him another 50 billion in appropriations, they don't seem so opposed wouldn't you think?
I don't care if the vote in Congress was 535-0 to let Bush deploy troops in Iraq, they don't have the right to let him do it. They can declare war, or they can choose not to. US war-making was designed to go like this:
Bad thing happens with......Canada.
Congress declares war on Canada.
President takes the military to war and kicks some Canadian ass based on his plans and his choice of leadership.
Canadians ask for peace treaty, president approves it.
Senate approves peace treaty.
So ends the war of the sled-dogs.
Congress did not, nor do they now have the right to simply allow the president to deploy troops at his discretion. Since WWII we have not declared war and since WWII we haven't won a war (no, Reagan/Bush 1 police actions don't count, the enemy have to actually be able to fight back). I'm not making this **** up, read Article I.
