Reply
Fri 29 Sep, 2006 07:37 am
I think . . . nay, i know . . . that your comments about Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt are horse ****. Given that your contentions are based upon flawed accounts of what these Presidents did in those wars, i consider your thesis not to be worth the candle.
Re: Let the Right be Done
coberst wrote:America politicians are the best experts available for evaluating the judgmental ability of American citizens.
I have never seen any evidence to support this.
"judgmental ability"??? What the heck is
that anyway?
Politicians are the necessary brokers for the constant negotiation of the social contract as between essentially self-interested and therefore from mildly to accutely, mutually hostile individuals and groups. Quite consonant with that, politicians are themselves self-interested, which explains why they perform the function. Blaming them or praising them are equally futile enterprises--like common day laborers, there will always be another one available tomorrow morning if you don't like the one you've got today.
Re: Let the Right be Done
How one distinguishes one from the other is a debate in itself. I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about the Lincoln and FDR administrations, and what "good" they favored at the expense of what "right."
Re: Let the Right be Done
Shapeless wrote:
How one distinguishes one from the other is a debate in itself. I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about the Lincoln and FDR administrations, and what "good" they favored at the expense of what "right."
"During his terms as president, Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and upheld the Declaration of Independence above the Constitution."
http://216.110.172.115/pulito.htm
FDR forced the internment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII.
Lincoln's original suspension of writs was overturned by Chief Justic Roger B. Taney of the Supreme Court, the man who sent Dred Scott into slavery. He died on the same day in 1864 that his home state of Maryland abolished slavery. Lincoln issued a second proclamation suspending writs in 1862, specifying the suspension only in districts under military control--Taney had overturned the first proclamation by taking the case of Maryland man who had been held without habeas corpus, by acting in his other capacity as a Federal Circuit Judge. He was powerless to do anything about the second proclamation, unless and until a suit wended its way to the Supreme Court. There was such a suit, but Taney was dead, and the Chief Justice, Salmon Chase, upheld the proclamation. For those interested in the comparison, Jefferson Davis also suspended writs of habeas corpus in the Confederate States--one of many reasons he was unpopular in the South, and with the Confederate States Congress--many members of which considered him a military dictator.
Article One, Section 9, the second paragraph, of the United States Constitution reads, in full:
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.[/b] (emphasis added).
It was upon that basis that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and after the extraordinary action on the part of the pro-slavery Chief Justice Taney, he issued his 1862 proclamation restricting the suspension of writs to areas under military control. You have no argument.
I consider the internment of Japanese Americans to have been reprehensible--nevertheless, the Supreme Court found in 1944 that the action was warranted when there is "pressing public necessity." For the opinion, written by Mr. Justice Hugo Black, see Koramatsu versus the United States.
************************************************
You really have no basis for your claims, but quite apart from that, you haven't provided any reason to take your comments about politicians and their role in society seriously.
He never does Settie. Don't you know a simple thing like that yet?
Setanta wrote:
************************************************
You really have no basis for your claims, but quite apart from that, you haven't provided any reason to take your comments about politicians and their role in society seriously.
Perhaps you missed the first paragraph of my post.
"America politicians are the best experts available for evaluating the judgmental ability of American citizens. Watching election campaigns offer us an opportunity to quickly gauge the level of intellectual sophistication of US citizens as judged by politicians; the politicians' expertise in all such matters determines their success or failure as a politician. "
coberst wrote:Setanta wrote:You really have no basis for your claims, but quite apart from that, you haven't provided any reason to take your comments about politicians and their role in society seriously.
Perhaps you missed the first paragraph of my post.
"America politicians are the best experts available for evaluating the judgmental ability of American citizens. Watching election campaigns offer us an opportunity to quickly gauge the level of intellectual sophistication of US citizens as judged by politicians; the politicians' expertise in all such matters determines their success or failure as a politician. "
Yes, that is exactly the passage to which i refer--i didn't miss a thing. You have done nothing but spew a series of statements from authority, an authority for which we have no reason to assume you are entitled to claim. You have not provided any reason to take this statement seriously.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace