Scooter Libby Has Sentence Commuted

[JoyJuice]

Yes, but they can't stop him unless all the rest of them vote against him.

Okay, does the ability NOT to stop him make it legal?

Moreover, how does his action jive with our constitutional call to abide by international agreements as if the law of the land?

 

[oldbetang]

But you're are right Annan is not the final arbitrator, our Constitution is:


Article VI of the US Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"​

The US Constitution is the final arbiter of international law? Are you sure about that?

750 of them.

That article does not refer to 750 signing statements. It alleges that there have been 750 laws affected by Bush's signing statements.

Signing statements were used by past presidents as a commentary on the law, not to edit to expressly turn one's nose and violate the law. Quite the difference.

That's true in some cases but not in all. Past Presidents, including Clinton, used signing statements to negate or neuter some elements of laws of the land.

FISA of course,

FISA is unconstitutional?

along with the recent CIA overstepping,

Such as?

and moreover through the testimony Gonzales these may not be the only illegal spying programs on American citizens in violation of the Constitution.....again.

Again, it's a treaty. A country on their own accord through the means of a intept attornery within the Whitehouse to justify torture can not change the name of prisoners, to specifically do what the treaty says is illegal. That would be like Vietnam reclassifiying our prisoners in Hanoi as "Hotel guests" and not prisoners to do the same. You can't alter treaties on your own.

The treaty has not been altered. The criteria on what constitutes a POW is quite clearly laid out. The enemy combatants held at Guantanamo are not covered by that criteria.

It deprives one of theire free liberty of employment; the 14th admendment.

As I said, religious discrimination is not inherently prohibited by the Constitution. For example, religious institutions are free to factor in their own religious considerations when filling positions within their organizations.

 

[Smileyill]

Okay, does the ability NOT to stop him make it legal?

Moreover, how does his action jive with our constitutional call to abide by international agreements as if the law of the land?

Unenforceable law isn't law at all. But you're right it doesn't jive with American values.

 

[oldbetang]

Unenforceable law isn't law at all.

QFT!

 

[JoyJuice]

Unenforceable law isn't law at all. But you're right it doesn't jive with American values.

No, I don't mean values, I mean Law. The constitution sees international agreements as Law.

 

[Smileyill]

No, I don't mean values, I mean Law. The constitution sees international agreements as Law.

Oh well, in case you didn't know, treaties have the same authority as Acts of Congress, signed by the President (or 2/3 override), but the later in time controls. So all Congress needs to do is pass a bill to ignore a treaty.

 

[JoyJuice]

The US Constitution is the final arbiter of international law? Are you sure about that?

Versus what, another sigining statement? I provided exactly what the United States Constitution says in regard to how we are to treat international treaties.

That article does not refer to 750 signing statements. It alleges that there have been 750 laws affected by Bush's signing statements.

Tony Snow is that you?

I never said it refered to the actual 750 in totality, I said he employed the signing statement Seven Hundred and Fifty times just like the article states.

That's true in some cases but not in all. Past Presidents, including Clinton, used signing statements to negate or neuter some elements of laws of the land.

Show me.

FISA is unconstitutional?

Only when you ignore it.

Such as?

Oops sorry, I meant the FBI

The treaty has not been altered. The criteria on what constitutes a POW is quite clearly laid out. The enemy combatants held at Guantanamo are not covered by that criteria.

Tony, that is you.

I'm not saying the treaty itself has been altered. I am saying that we don't have the right to reclassify prisoners of war described per the, Geneva convention Article 4, for specific reason to torture.

As I said, religious discrimination is not inherently prohibited by the Constitution. For example, religious institutions are free to factor in their own religious considerations when filling positions within their organizations.

Which has nothing to do with Federal funded programs where religious discrimination is expressly prohibited.

 

[Nienor]

Closed for staff review