Text 20296, 92 rader
Skriven 2006-05-21 07:52:07 av John Hull (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 20294 av Bob Ackley (1:2905/3)
Ärende: War Monkey
==================
Bob Ackley -> VERN HUMPHREY wrote:
 BA> Replying to a message of VERN HUMPHREY to BOB ACKLEY:

 GB>>>> What war crimes?

 BA>>> The Constitution of the United States, Article 6, states that the
 BA>>> Constitution and the treaties signed and ratified in accordance with
 BA>>> it, shall be the supreme law of the land.  The Charter of the United
 BA>>> Nations is a treaty, signed by the president and ratified by the
 BA>>> Senate.

 VH>> And Article V says how the Constitution may be amended:

 VH>>                           Article. V.
 VH>>         The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
 VH>> necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on
 VH>> the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several
 VH>> States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which,
 VH>> in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as
 VH>> Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of
 VH>> three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three
 VH>> fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification
 VH>> may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment
 VH>> which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred
 VH>> and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth
 VH>> Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no
 VH>> State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal
 VH>> Suffrage in the Senate.

 VH>> It is bizzare to suggest that the Founders, who declared two-thirds of
 VH>> BOTH houses AND three-fourths of the states are required to amend the
 VH>> Constitution actually meant a mere majority of the Senate only, could
 VH>> amend it by approving a treaty.

 BA> It's not bizarre at all, that's the way they wrote it.  The words are
 BA> not complex
 BA> and the grammar is pretty simple and easy to read and understand.
 BA> Perhaps you
 BA> could convince 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states to change that?


That isn't what he said, Bob.  Getting 2/3 of both houses, and 3/4 of the
states to agree on something is damn near impossible.  That's exactly what the
Founders meant to do when they wrote that, simple English or not.  They wanted
it hard as hell to change to prevent the Senate or the House, or anybody else
from making changes on the fly, willy nilly.


 BA> And while you're on the subject of amending that document, perhaps you
 BA> could
 BA> convince the congress, the executive and the courts that none of them
 BA> has a legitimate
 BA> power to amend, alter, or abolish the Constitution?  The horribly
 BA> misnamed and blatantly
 BA> anti-Constitutional USA PATRIOT Act comes immediately to mind, along
 BA> with some provisions of the FISA legislation and the current brouhaha
 BA> over NSA's domestic spying (which data mining - the claim they aren't
 BA> doing it is patent bullshit - one can easily defeat by buying a
 BA> disposable cell phone, disposing of it as soon as the minutes are up,
 BA> and buying another one - and note that there's no record of who owns any
 BA> of those).  Note that the 1947 law that established NSA specifically
 BA> forbids it from listening to communications within the US.  Also
 BA> retroactive taxes and pay increases (which are by definition
 BA> ex-post-facto laws, and the Constitution - at least my copy of it -
 BA> doesn't differentiate between civil and criminal law in that regard).
 BA> And the so-called death tax, which is a direct tax and is therefore
 BA> unConstitutional, because the government has the power to directly tax
 BA> only incomes, and estates are not incomes.


You really need to catch up.  NSA and the President have specifically said that
only calls that originate outside the US are being monitored.  Nor is data
mining illegal.  Advertisers have been doing it for years.  In fact, recent
news report (and subsequent law suites) indicate that NSA didn't even get the
information directly from the phone companies. In any case, all that
information is public record legally.

As for the Patriot Act, you can squawk about it all you want, but its reality. 
I might also note that when Congress voted to make it permanent awhile ago,
several parts of it were either rescinded or modified to address the concerns
of those who felt it was too intrusive. I ask you, however, which is worse? 
Sticking to your idealistic guns and allowing terrorists more freedom (meaning
you might ultimately die in a nuke attack because they were able to carry out
their attack more easily) to plan and prosecute attacks, or providing the tools
necessary to track and capture them even if we may have to put up with some
inconvenience or loss of a bit of personal freedom.

I'd say saving millions of lives will, in the long run, trump any objections
from the idealists.

--- Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308)
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)