Comments on: What does “Constitutional” really mean? The devil is in the details

By: Chippedchips

Chippedchips — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:01:32 +0000

precedence? I never could spell worth a hoot.

PING:
TITLE: Declare Supreme Court Justices Enemy Combatants
BLOG NAME: Jon Swift
In the Article of the Constitution that gives the President the power to designate enemy combatants there is nothing that explicitly protects members of the Supreme Court from being declared enemy combatants.

By: Chippedchips

Chippedchips — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:00:10 +0000

DBL you said: The Court flat out ignored the plain language of a statute that stripped it of jurisdiction over this appeal.

Yup yup yup..da supreme court dasen’t know a thing does dey?

I bet bush is whining mad and kicking the slats out of his cradle about “his” hand picked boys finding against him.

Errrr does thie plain language statute take presidence over Constitutional law..I friggin doubt it.

By: DBL

DBL — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:55:24 +0000

The Court flat out ignored the plain language of a statute that stripped it of jurisdiction over this appeal. Actually, it’s not fair to say that the Court never even addressed the relevant statute; rather, Justice Stevens wrote an opinion that can only be called sophistic and which ended up casting aside the plain meaning of the words of the statute. Please tell me, because I really want to know, how this type of flagrant defiance of Congress’s right to enact laws can possibly increase the public’s respect for the law or the courts?

By: Chippedchips

Chippedchips — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:12:46 +0000

Constitutional, what does it mean?…the question is rather ambiguous or at least broad.

It depends on which definitions of the word is intended, common definitions, or legal definition as applied to U S Constitution and law.

Best I think to go backward as any halfassed lexicologist would, to the word constitute which is defined among others, as: to establish formally; found, and work forward through constitution, and finally constitutional seeking out all definitions legal and common.

The reason I point this out is because those presently in power in this nation and the way they continually circumvent and usurp it, don’t think very much, if anything, cited in our Constitution is legally binding and/or applies to themselves unless its conveniently in their extremist right wing favor(s).

By: Salmineo

Salmineo — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 03:30:15 +0000

Again, I say the President will pull an Andrew Jackson, and, simply ignore the Supreme Court in a flurry of “protect the people” rhetoric. His party will back him up with more rhetoric and the simple minded masses will rise up against anyone whom questions.

Constitution? We are only one propaganda campaign away from “Crystal Nacht”. This can only be countered with loud and obnoxious counter propaganda! Law alone will not save us.