Snowdon is a dummy

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

That is incorrect on two counts, Olivier. But I love your determination.

I know you love me, Frank, but that shouldn't prevent you from articulating your point. Don't be shy... Tell us how the constitutionality of a law or program can be decided upon absent a SCOTUS decision.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

You are a loser and a sore loser.

Sorry, Olivier...but you are wrong on both counts.

I am not a loser...and on those occasions when I am a loser (as I was in our annual workers golf match last month)...I am a very gracious loser.

Hey...buddy...you get too frustrated too easily. Ya gotta calm down.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSjflRBqnnuK_NpOSngDdZu0tXXyLBxEYPndbmPwXYMxvnlEqyF

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I wrote:
But to decide if Snowden committed a crime, you don't need a court ruling, correct?

Answering Frank Apisa wrote:
You need a trial to determine if Snowden is guilty of the crimes for which he is charged.

As for the other thing...Walter...in this country oatmeal is legal and constitutional...until the courts decide otherwise.

I know that A2K was having some troubles when I posted the above.
But I neither posted any "the other thing" in my above post nor did I consider to do it.

"The other thing" was your implied endorsement of what Olivier was incorrectly stating about how constitutional issues are resolved in this country, Walter.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
That is incorrect on two counts, Olivier. But I love your determination.

I know you love me, Frank, but that shouldn't prevent you from articulating your point. Don't be shy... Tell us how the constitutionality of a law or program can be decided upon absent a SCOTUS decision.

Laws and actions of the government, Olivier...are simply constitutional...unless the courts rule otherwise. Ultimately, the SCOTUS will rule on that.

Eating liver for breakfast, for instance, is both legal and constitutional...although that question has never been decided by the SCOTUS.

Try to wrap your mind around that.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Laws and actions of the government, Olivier...are simply constitutional...unless the courts rule otherwise.

Do you have any evidence of that? That sounds very bizarre.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Sure thing, loser.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Laws and actions of the government, Olivier...are simply constitutional...unless the courts rule otherwise.

Do you have any evidence of that? That sounds very bizarre.

Nothing bizarre about it.

Congress passes all sorts of laws...and government agencies conduct all sorts of business. All of it is considered legal and constitutional...unless challenged. If challenged...it can be declared unconstitutional. But that is a decision of a the court. Until then...IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

But for the most part...the SCOTUS does not declare laws or acts to be constitutional...they either rule they are unconstitutional...or note that they are not unconstitutional (a bit different from ruling that they are constitutional.)

Sometimes the SCOTUS does not do that latter thing by making a ruling. They can (and often do) simply refuse to rule on the matter brought before it...and the last ruling by an under court will stand. If that ruling is that the law or action was not unconstitutional...then it will stand without the court even ruling.

Your suggestion that the court must rule things constitutional is itself bizarre. Most laws...and most actions of the government are never ruled on...but that does not leave them "up in the air."

And the courts must determine if a particular law or action is unconstitutional...not you or the public.

I will accept your acknowledgement that you are wrong with grace, Olivier.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Sure thing, loser.

I'm not a loser, Olivier...but it apparently makes your life more livable to suggest that I am...so do so.

I will get a laugh out of it as I call to your attention that you are wrong.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Laws and actions of the government, Olivier...are simply constitutional...unless the courts rule otherwise.

Do you have any evidence of that? That sounds very bizarre.

All of it is considered legal and constitutional...unless challenged.

No evidence provided... I do note however that you are now using the term "considered", which is different from "decided". It's as I said: a law may be assumed to be constitutional prior to a SCOTUS ruling. But its constitutionality has in fact not been decided and thus it remains unknown.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Well hey, if the regime deems that these surveillance efforts were constitutional, then they're constitutional

Actually that is not what the appeals court said if you read it right.

Quote:
The appeals court, however, ruled that the government had put in place adequate safeguards to avoid constitutional violations.

“We caution that our decision does not constitute an endorsement of broad-based, indiscriminate executive power,” the court wrote on Aug. 22, 2008. “Rather, our decision recognizes that where the government has instituted several layers of serviceable safeguards to protect individuals against unwarranted harms and to minimize incidental intrusions, its efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts. This is such a case.”

The court is saying that the government as a whole is above those "checks and balances" procedures and ideals that the US' government is supposedly based on--at least as it pertains to the courts--in regard to the government's efforts to protect national securitity.

That the courts deem the government's safeguards to protect individuals against unwarranted harms and to minimize incidental intrusions to be adequate and serviceable is irrelevant because the governments efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts. This opinion of the appeals court makes suspect their opinion of the government's efforts to protect national security.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

And we dont know what finacial agreement he has with Snowdon.

0 Replies

What is up with A2K today?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Actually...unless the SCOTUS ultimately rules that they are unconstitutional...then they are not unconstitutional.

That is the way it works here.

So, are they even on the SCOTUS' agenda?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

U.S. threatened massive fine to force Yahoo to release data

Here's the correct URL:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/national/us-threatened-yahoo-with-hefty-fines/2014/09/12/c762b258-3a8c-11e4-a023-1d61f7f31a05_video.html

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

What is up with A2K today?

Limestone Networks hosts the server used for able2know

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I gave that link (as well as one to the NYT) already some pages ago

Walter Hinteler wrote:

We (Europeans, you Americans were certainly aware of it) only know thanks what happened "after Snowden" about it:
U.S. threatened massive fine to force Yahoo to release data
Government’s Threat of Daily Fine for Yahoo Shows Aggressive Push for Data

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Quote:

I am as liberal as the next liberal

You come across as a FAUX News regular.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Laws and actions of the government, Olivier...are simply constitutional...unless the courts rule otherwise.

Do you have any evidence of that? That sounds very bizarre.

All of it is considered legal and constitutional...unless challenged.

No evidence provided... I do note however that you are now using the term "considered", which is different from "decided". It's as I said: a law may be assumed to be constitutional prior to a SCOTUS ruling. But its constitutionality has in fact not been decided and thus it remains unknown.

You really are getting desperate, Olivier. Sorry to see that…I much prefer a more controlled partner in these discussions.

In any case, the law or action IS constitutional unless challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a court. Period.

But you are the kind of person who cannot concede when you are wrong...so I suspect you will continue on the merry-go-round.

I suggest you jump, Olivier. Jump!

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Actually...unless the SCOTUS ultimately rules that they are unconstitutional...then they are not unconstitutional.

That is the way it works here.

So, are they even on the SCOTUS' agenda?

To the best of my knowledge, they are not even in the lower courts, Blue.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I suppose I don't understand how you are arrived at your conclusion based on what the court said.

The court said their decision is not a blanket endorsement. The court recognized the government had safe guards and procedures to protect people from unwarranted harm and to minimize intrusions and their (the governments) efforts should not be frustrated by the court.

It's pretty straightforward.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know