Supreme Court usurps its authority again, part 7
I suggest you check out the following website if you are a policy holder of Farmers Insurance Group or thinking about having them insure you in any capacity: www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com
.gif)
https://affiliates.visionforum.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=367
The above link is for a company—Vision Forum—that provides unique products for the family. I am an affiliate for the company and receive a small commission whenever someone uses this link and then makes an unreturned purchase while using the link. Check it out. I think you might like the products offered. I do. See my more complete explanation on my post of February 1, 2008 entitled “Affiliate program with Vision Forum.”
Based upon past historical data: 3,287+ UNBORN BABY MURDERS have occurred in the last 24 hours in the United States. See my post “BABY HOLOCAUST” posted January 22, 2008.
I’ve been involved in a problem one of my clients has with Farmers Insurance Group. My previous posts in relation to this problem were:
September 10, 2007 post: “Beware of Farmers Insurance Group”
September 11, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group’s response”
September 18, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company received the requested list”
September 19, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company’s response to the list”
October 16, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and my request for information”
November 27, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group does not respond to my request”
January 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group latest stall”
January 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group is sent a response”
January 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group pays some money”
January 19, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group continues to be obstinate”
January 26, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group receives another request”
February 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group shows how low they will go?”
February 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group: If I were going to respond to the final letter”
February 13, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and associated companies”
February 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and how others rate the company”
I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.
Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com
www.childpredators.com
www.lifedynamics.com
www.libertylegal.org
www.alliancedefensefund.org
www.searchtv.org
There is another slight change in my announced plans for posting. I received a comment from my post entitled “The Declaration of Independence” and I intend to comment on it. I first will finish this series on FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS and the obscene Supreme Court decision. I will then comment on the posted comment and then I will finish the posts on homosexuality and the California Supreme Court. That is the new plan.
I had planned on only one post in relation to the Supreme Court decision and FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS. However, that has changed. In the Peoria Journal Star’s typical practice of providing balanced journalism, the paper printed four articles in relation to the decision. Three of the articles—an editorial by a national journalist, a political “cartoon” editorial, and an editorial by the on staff editorial writers—supported the Supreme Court decision. One editorial was opposed to the decision. (I have commented on three of the four in previous posts. I have not yet commented on the staff editorial writers’ opinion.) However, it doesn’t matter. The paper could publish 100 editorials in favor of the decision and every one of them would be—wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
In the mean time, the Peoria Journal Star published three more articles on the Supreme Court decision dealing with FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS on June 22, 2008, page A5 for a total of seven specific editorials on this one subject. As with their balanced reporting practices, two of the articles were in support of the Supreme Court’s obscene ruling and one was opposed to the decision. Thus, a total of five editorials supported the decision and two were in opposition. However, it doesn’t matter. The paper could publish 100 editorials in favor of the decision and every one of them would be—wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
Tonight’s post is an editorial published on June 22nd that supports the Supreme Court decision. The editorial is entitled “President cannot trash Constitution’s principles” by Gene Robinson who is one of the several libertine columnists published in the Peoria Journal Star. The article is as follows:
“It shouldn’t be necessary for the Supreme Court to tell the president that he can’t have individuals taken into custody, spirited to a remote prison camp and held indefinitely, with no legal right to argue that they’ve been unjustly imprisoned—not even on grounds of mistaken identity. (Note that the writer makes this sound like the President just sent a squad of FBI agents into the streets to swoop down on unsuspecting souls who are then secretly whisked off to some dungeon prison. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS who have been captured in time of war. THEY ARE NOT U.S. CITIZENS!!!—my addition) But the president in question, sigh, is George W. Bush (Can you feel the hatred?—my addition), who has take a chainsaw to the rule of law with the same manic (name calling?—my addition) gusto he displays in clearing brush at his Texas ranch. (Has the author watched the President clear brush at his Texas ranch? Just wondering? In reality, this is total and complete nonsense. The President through his representatives is applying Congressional law—the Detainee Act of 2005. See previous post. But then, these libertine columnists don’t let a little thing like facts and the truth stand in the way of their obscene pronouncements!—my addition)
So, for the third and apparently final time, the court made clear that the Decider has no authority to trash the foundational principles of jurisprudence. (Unfortunately, it is not the President who is trashing anything. It is the five members of the Supreme Court who are usurping their authority by rewriting the Constitution of the United States by obscene judicial interpretation to suit their own purposes—my addition.) In ruling 5-4 that foreigners (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS!!! These are not tourists who are plucked off the streets of a major American city!!!—my addition) held at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in federal court, the court cited the Constitution and the centuries-old concept of habeas corpus. (However, the five court members DID NOT cite the portion of the Constitution that declares that Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” They seemed to have ignored that section. They also ignored the FACT that the writ of habeas corpus HAS NEVER BEEN extended to FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS!!! Citing as authority five Justices who are usurping their authority and power does NOT convince me that they are right nor should it convince anyone else!—my addition) Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion seems broad enough and definitive enough to end the Kafkaesque farce at Guantanamo once and for all. (Note his opinion of the whole process. He is showing his libertine bias as always. Who cares about the Constitution? Who cares about past history? We don’t like it so the courts should and must change it!—my addition)
‘The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,’ Kennedy wrote. (I agree! So why does the Supreme Court continually ignore the Constitution and Congressional law to implement their social engineering ideas of what is and what should be?—my addition)
Again, it’s amazing that any president would need a basic concept spelled out for him. (It’s just unfortunate that that so called basic concept is NOT within the Constitution. Therefore, the five Justices must try to rewrite it through judicial interpretation and judicial tyranny! Show me where the Constitution declares that the writ of habeas corpus applies to FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS! It is NOT in the Constitution!—my addition)
That reference to ‘extraordinary times’ takes care of a specious argument that Bush and his legal minions (More name calling?—my addition) have tried to make: That when the nation is at war, as it has been since the 9-11 attacks, the president has extraordinary powers that allow him to do, well, basically anything he wants. (This writer doesn’t even know recent history or else ignores it—the Detainee Act of 2005. Do you think his seeming hatred for President Bush clouds all that he writes or is it just his extreme libertine views?—my addition)
Twice before, the court has ordered Bush to respect the rule of law. (What rule of law? The five members of the Supreme Court don’t respect either the rule of law or the Constitution of the United States! Their concept of the rule of law is the RULE of the FIVE!!! That is COURTOCRACY and that is OUR PROBLEM!!! —my addition) In 2006, (I’m guessing that he is referring to the Detainee Act of 2005 as it was identified in the previous post. I don’t know which date is correct and it really doesn’t matter. What does matter is that Congress fulfilled its Constitutional mandate to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” and five unelected members of the Supreme Court think they know better than both Congress and the United States Constitution!!!—my addition) after the second ruling in favor of Guantanamo inmates’ (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS!!! He continually wants his readers to think that these are just ordinary foreigners who have just been detained for seemingly no rhyme or reason.—my addition) rights (What rights? Why, rights manufactured by an out of control Supreme Court!—my addition), the administration convinced Congress (those “stupid” Congressmen who have no minds of their own? By the way, weren’t these “mindless” Congressmen elected by the people?—my addition) to pass a law stripping the inmates (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition) of any right to file habeas corpus petitions in the federal courts. (Good!!! That is what they are suppose to do although FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS have NEVER HAD the right of writ of habeas corpus except when granted by this usurping Supreme Court!!!—my addition)
The June 12 ruling struck down this law—and since the decision was based on the Constitution (NO IT WAS NOT!!! NO IT WAS NOT!!! NO IT WAS NOT!!!—my addition), it seems to eliminate the possibility of new legislation (NO IT DOES NOT!!! NO IT DOES NOT!!! NO IT DOES NOT!!! Since when is Congress prohibited by the Constitution from legislating in this area???—my addition) that would let Bush continue his program of arbitrary (His concept. It was not arbitrary. A law was passed as provided by the Constitution to regulate “Captures on Land and Water”—my addition), indefinite detention without judicial review.
The court also deemed inadequate the Kangaroo-court (His opinion, his judgment. Can anyone actually give credence to his opinion?—my addition) tribunals that are held for Guantanamo inmates (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition) in lieu of proper court hearings. (“The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water….”—my addition) In the tribunals, an inmate (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition) is allowed to have a ‘personal representative’ but not an actual defense lawyer—and the inmate (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition) has no right to see the evidence against him or confront his accusers. (Do you think that captured American soldiers who are tortured and killed by the terrorists have even a “personal representative” let alone a lawyer to represent them? Maybe we should provide lawyers for FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS on the battlefield to insure that we kill them humanely!!!—my addition)
Is it conceivable that the evidence against certain inmates (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition) might consist of witness statements that were obtained through the use of interrogation techniques involving painful coercion that international agreements classify as torture? (Do you sometimes think that he thinks we are involved in an international basketball game instead of a war in which the enemy wants to destroy us including him? Maybe he thinks he will be spared because he has supported their cause. However, if I remember correctly, the terrorists aren’t too keen on homosexual behavior and those who support such behavior. Nor are they too keen on free speech and speaking your mind. He just might be in trouble if the terrorists win!—my addition.) Amazingly, that scenario is highly conceivable. (To him maybe! I’ll compare our methods to those of the enemy any day of the week, at any time, under any circumstances! Do you think the terrorists give our soldiers Bibles?—my addition) It’s also highly conceivable—even probable—that some of the estimated 270 inmates (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition) at Guantanamo, imprisoned for as long as six years, are innocent of any involvement in terrorism and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (He says. It is also probable that we have released people who were terrorists and were not detained. That’s what happens in war. This is not a game of chess and the consequences of releasing a terrorist could be deadly for us. Are the courts qualified to determine who is and who is not a terrorist? Were the courts given the constitutional duty of determining who is and who is not a FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANT? Of course, NOT!!! THIS IS WAR NOT a parlor game!!!—my addition)
It’s still hard for me to believe that arbitrary arrest (CAPTURE—the military is not a police outfit!!!—my addition), indefinite detention and torture (WHEN DID HE PROVE THIS???—my addition) continue to be debated, as if there were pros and cons. (Who cares what is hard for him to believe. He is a libertine! He thinks unborn babies should be MURDERED by their mothers if their mothers so choose! Why is he not as passionate about saving the lives of innocent, unborn babies? That we allow the MURDER of unborn babies through an obscene court decision is what is unbelievable to me!!!—my addition) The Supreme Court has now made clear (THAT SOME MEMBERS ARE STILL WILLING TO USURP THEIR AUTHORITY!!!—my addition) that while justice and honor may be mere inconveniences for Bush (What nonsense! What hatred! President Bush has the responsibility to protect the people of this country not the responsibility to protect FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS!!!—my addition), they remain essential components of our national identity. (And that has not changed. If we detain FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS as prescribed by Congress by law as established by the Constitution of the United States, it still has not changed!!!—my addition)
‘The nation will live to regret what the court has done today,’ Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a dissent, warning that the ruling ‘will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.’
Everyone hopes he’s wrong (Isn’t that encouraging?—my addition), of course. But if the only thing that mattered was security (NO!!! THE CONSTITUTION ALSO MATTERS!!! AND THE FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COURT HAVE IGNORED AND ABANDONED THE CONSTITUTION FOR THEIR OWN WHIMS!!!—my addition), why would we have an independent judiciary at all? (To administer the law as was intended when the Constitution was written? He wants the Courts to be the RULER!!!—my addition) Why would there be any guarantees of due process for anyone? (To protect our citizens as written into the Constitution! Nothing guarantees our Constitutional rights to FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS!!! NOTHING EXCEPT AN OUT OF CONTROL SUPREME COURT!!!—my addition) We could just lock up anyone who fit the demographic profile of the average armed robber, say, or anyone with psychological traits often displayed by embezzlers. (This is a “straw man” argument. He is trying to compare a U.S. citizen with a FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANT and they are NOT the same!!!—my addition)
The Guantanamo decision will create headaches for the federal courts. (THIS IS HIS FIRST COMMENT THAT HAS MADE SENSE!!!—my addition) The process of granting hearings to the detainees will be messy (AND INAPPROPRIATE and UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!—my addition) and at times frustrating. I’m confident that in the end, the system will work. (Doesn’t that make it all better now? Who cares if he is confident?—my addition) George W. Bush may not trust America’s basic values (NONSENSE!!!—my addition) and highest ideals, but I do. (Doesn’t that make you feel better? Unfortunately, the decision of the Court does not follow either. IT IS A USURPATION OF POWER!!!—my addition)
This ruling is simply an illegal edict by a Supreme Court that enjoys rewriting the Constitution of the United States. THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!! THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!! THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!!
Article I, Section 8 declares “The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water….” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” NOT ANY FEDERAL COURT; NOT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
Historically, when Congress has not made such rules during time of war, who do you think made such rules? The Supreme Court??? NO!!! NEVER!!! It has been the President under his power as commander in chief of the armed forces—Article II, Section 2. Does the Supreme Court have the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water?” NOT ACCORDING TO THE CONSTUTITION OF THE UNITED STATES!!! If that power is so listed, please tell me where it is because I have some knowledge of the Constitution and I have NEVER read it in the CONSTITUTION! NEVER!!! I haven’t read it because it is NOT in the CONSTITUTION!!!!!
“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)
I suggest you check out the following website if you are a policy holder of Farmers Insurance Group or thinking about having them insure you in any capacity: www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com
https://affiliates.visionforum.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=367
The above link is for a company—Vision Forum—that provides unique products for the family. I am an affiliate for the company and receive a small commission whenever someone uses this link and then makes an unreturned purchase while using the link. Check it out. I think you might like the products offered. I do. See my more complete explanation on my post of February 1, 2008 entitled “Affiliate program with Vision Forum.”
Based upon past historical data: 3,287+ UNBORN BABY MURDERS have occurred in the last 24 hours in the United States. See my post “BABY HOLOCAUST” posted January 22, 2008.
I’ve been involved in a problem one of my clients has with Farmers Insurance Group. My previous posts in relation to this problem were:
September 10, 2007 post: “Beware of Farmers Insurance Group”
September 11, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group’s response”
September 18, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company received the requested list”
September 19, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company’s response to the list”
October 16, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and my request for information”
November 27, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group does not respond to my request”
January 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group latest stall”
January 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group is sent a response”
January 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group pays some money”
January 19, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group continues to be obstinate”
January 26, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group receives another request”
February 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group shows how low they will go?”
February 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group: If I were going to respond to the final letter”
February 13, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and associated companies”
February 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and how others rate the company”
I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.
Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com
www.childpredators.com
www.lifedynamics.com
www.libertylegal.org
www.alliancedefensefund.org
www.searchtv.org
There is another slight change in my announced plans for posting. I received a comment from my post entitled “The Declaration of Independence” and I intend to comment on it. I first will finish this series on FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS and the obscene Supreme Court decision. I will then comment on the posted comment and then I will finish the posts on homosexuality and the California Supreme Court. That is the new plan.
I had planned on only one post in relation to the Supreme Court decision and FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS. However, that has changed. In the Peoria Journal Star’s typical practice of providing balanced journalism, the paper printed four articles in relation to the decision. Three of the articles—an editorial by a national journalist, a political “cartoon” editorial, and an editorial by the on staff editorial writers—supported the Supreme Court decision. One editorial was opposed to the decision. (I have commented on three of the four in previous posts. I have not yet commented on the staff editorial writers’ opinion.) However, it doesn’t matter. The paper could publish 100 editorials in favor of the decision and every one of them would be—wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
In the mean time, the Peoria Journal Star published three more articles on the Supreme Court decision dealing with FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS on June 22, 2008, page A5 for a total of seven specific editorials on this one subject. As with their balanced reporting practices, two of the articles were in support of the Supreme Court’s obscene ruling and one was opposed to the decision. Thus, a total of five editorials supported the decision and two were in opposition. However, it doesn’t matter. The paper could publish 100 editorials in favor of the decision and every one of them would be—wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
Tonight’s post is an editorial published on June 22nd that supports the Supreme Court decision. The editorial is entitled “President cannot trash Constitution’s principles” by Gene Robinson who is one of the several libertine columnists published in the Peoria Journal Star. The article is as follows:
“It shouldn’t be necessary for the Supreme Court to tell the president that he can’t have individuals taken into custody, spirited to a remote prison camp and held indefinitely, with no legal right to argue that they’ve been unjustly imprisoned—not even on grounds of mistaken identity. (Note that the writer makes this sound like the President just sent a squad of FBI agents into the streets to swoop down on unsuspecting souls who are then secretly whisked off to some dungeon prison. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS who have been captured in time of war. THEY ARE NOT U.S. CITIZENS!!!—my addition) But the president in question, sigh, is George W. Bush (Can you feel the hatred?—my addition), who has take a chainsaw to the rule of law with the same manic (name calling?—my addition) gusto he displays in clearing brush at his Texas ranch. (Has the author watched the President clear brush at his Texas ranch? Just wondering? In reality, this is total and complete nonsense. The President through his representatives is applying Congressional law—the Detainee Act of 2005. See previous post. But then, these libertine columnists don’t let a little thing like facts and the truth stand in the way of their obscene pronouncements!—my addition)
So, for the third and apparently final time, the court made clear that the Decider has no authority to trash the foundational principles of jurisprudence. (Unfortunately, it is not the President who is trashing anything. It is the five members of the Supreme Court who are usurping their authority by rewriting the Constitution of the United States by obscene judicial interpretation to suit their own purposes—my addition.) In ruling 5-4 that foreigners (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS!!! These are not tourists who are plucked off the streets of a major American city!!!—my addition) held at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in federal court, the court cited the Constitution and the centuries-old concept of habeas corpus. (However, the five court members DID NOT cite the portion of the Constitution that declares that Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” They seemed to have ignored that section. They also ignored the FACT that the writ of habeas corpus HAS NEVER BEEN extended to FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS!!! Citing as authority five Justices who are usurping their authority and power does NOT convince me that they are right nor should it convince anyone else!—my addition) Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion seems broad enough and definitive enough to end the Kafkaesque farce at Guantanamo once and for all. (Note his opinion of the whole process. He is showing his libertine bias as always. Who cares about the Constitution? Who cares about past history? We don’t like it so the courts should and must change it!—my addition)
‘The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,’ Kennedy wrote. (I agree! So why does the Supreme Court continually ignore the Constitution and Congressional law to implement their social engineering ideas of what is and what should be?—my addition)
Again, it’s amazing that any president would need a basic concept spelled out for him. (It’s just unfortunate that that so called basic concept is NOT within the Constitution. Therefore, the five Justices must try to rewrite it through judicial interpretation and judicial tyranny! Show me where the Constitution declares that the writ of habeas corpus applies to FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS! It is NOT in the Constitution!—my addition)
That reference to ‘extraordinary times’ takes care of a specious argument that Bush and his legal minions (More name calling?—my addition) have tried to make: That when the nation is at war, as it has been since the 9-11 attacks, the president has extraordinary powers that allow him to do, well, basically anything he wants. (This writer doesn’t even know recent history or else ignores it—the Detainee Act of 2005. Do you think his seeming hatred for President Bush clouds all that he writes or is it just his extreme libertine views?—my addition)
Twice before, the court has ordered Bush to respect the rule of law. (What rule of law? The five members of the Supreme Court don’t respect either the rule of law or the Constitution of the United States! Their concept of the rule of law is the RULE of the FIVE!!! That is COURTOCRACY and that is OUR PROBLEM!!! —my addition) In 2006, (I’m guessing that he is referring to the Detainee Act of 2005 as it was identified in the previous post. I don’t know which date is correct and it really doesn’t matter. What does matter is that Congress fulfilled its Constitutional mandate to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” and five unelected members of the Supreme Court think they know better than both Congress and the United States Constitution!!!—my addition) after the second ruling in favor of Guantanamo inmates’ (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS!!! He continually wants his readers to think that these are just ordinary foreigners who have just been detained for seemingly no rhyme or reason.—my addition) rights (What rights? Why, rights manufactured by an out of control Supreme Court!—my addition), the administration convinced Congress (those “stupid” Congressmen who have no minds of their own? By the way, weren’t these “mindless” Congressmen elected by the people?—my addition) to pass a law stripping the inmates (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition) of any right to file habeas corpus petitions in the federal courts. (Good!!! That is what they are suppose to do although FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS have NEVER HAD the right of writ of habeas corpus except when granted by this usurping Supreme Court!!!—my addition)
The June 12 ruling struck down this law—and since the decision was based on the Constitution (NO IT WAS NOT!!! NO IT WAS NOT!!! NO IT WAS NOT!!!—my addition), it seems to eliminate the possibility of new legislation (NO IT DOES NOT!!! NO IT DOES NOT!!! NO IT DOES NOT!!! Since when is Congress prohibited by the Constitution from legislating in this area???—my addition) that would let Bush continue his program of arbitrary (His concept. It was not arbitrary. A law was passed as provided by the Constitution to regulate “Captures on Land and Water”—my addition), indefinite detention without judicial review.
The court also deemed inadequate the Kangaroo-court (His opinion, his judgment. Can anyone actually give credence to his opinion?—my addition) tribunals that are held for Guantanamo inmates (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition) in lieu of proper court hearings. (“The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water….”—my addition) In the tribunals, an inmate (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition) is allowed to have a ‘personal representative’ but not an actual defense lawyer—and the inmate (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition) has no right to see the evidence against him or confront his accusers. (Do you think that captured American soldiers who are tortured and killed by the terrorists have even a “personal representative” let alone a lawyer to represent them? Maybe we should provide lawyers for FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS on the battlefield to insure that we kill them humanely!!!—my addition)
Is it conceivable that the evidence against certain inmates (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition) might consist of witness statements that were obtained through the use of interrogation techniques involving painful coercion that international agreements classify as torture? (Do you sometimes think that he thinks we are involved in an international basketball game instead of a war in which the enemy wants to destroy us including him? Maybe he thinks he will be spared because he has supported their cause. However, if I remember correctly, the terrorists aren’t too keen on homosexual behavior and those who support such behavior. Nor are they too keen on free speech and speaking your mind. He just might be in trouble if the terrorists win!—my addition.) Amazingly, that scenario is highly conceivable. (To him maybe! I’ll compare our methods to those of the enemy any day of the week, at any time, under any circumstances! Do you think the terrorists give our soldiers Bibles?—my addition) It’s also highly conceivable—even probable—that some of the estimated 270 inmates (FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS—my addition) at Guantanamo, imprisoned for as long as six years, are innocent of any involvement in terrorism and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (He says. It is also probable that we have released people who were terrorists and were not detained. That’s what happens in war. This is not a game of chess and the consequences of releasing a terrorist could be deadly for us. Are the courts qualified to determine who is and who is not a terrorist? Were the courts given the constitutional duty of determining who is and who is not a FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANT? Of course, NOT!!! THIS IS WAR NOT a parlor game!!!—my addition)
It’s still hard for me to believe that arbitrary arrest (CAPTURE—the military is not a police outfit!!!—my addition), indefinite detention and torture (WHEN DID HE PROVE THIS???—my addition) continue to be debated, as if there were pros and cons. (Who cares what is hard for him to believe. He is a libertine! He thinks unborn babies should be MURDERED by their mothers if their mothers so choose! Why is he not as passionate about saving the lives of innocent, unborn babies? That we allow the MURDER of unborn babies through an obscene court decision is what is unbelievable to me!!!—my addition) The Supreme Court has now made clear (THAT SOME MEMBERS ARE STILL WILLING TO USURP THEIR AUTHORITY!!!—my addition) that while justice and honor may be mere inconveniences for Bush (What nonsense! What hatred! President Bush has the responsibility to protect the people of this country not the responsibility to protect FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS!!!—my addition), they remain essential components of our national identity. (And that has not changed. If we detain FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS as prescribed by Congress by law as established by the Constitution of the United States, it still has not changed!!!—my addition)
‘The nation will live to regret what the court has done today,’ Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a dissent, warning that the ruling ‘will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.’
Everyone hopes he’s wrong (Isn’t that encouraging?—my addition), of course. But if the only thing that mattered was security (NO!!! THE CONSTITUTION ALSO MATTERS!!! AND THE FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COURT HAVE IGNORED AND ABANDONED THE CONSTITUTION FOR THEIR OWN WHIMS!!!—my addition), why would we have an independent judiciary at all? (To administer the law as was intended when the Constitution was written? He wants the Courts to be the RULER!!!—my addition) Why would there be any guarantees of due process for anyone? (To protect our citizens as written into the Constitution! Nothing guarantees our Constitutional rights to FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS!!! NOTHING EXCEPT AN OUT OF CONTROL SUPREME COURT!!!—my addition) We could just lock up anyone who fit the demographic profile of the average armed robber, say, or anyone with psychological traits often displayed by embezzlers. (This is a “straw man” argument. He is trying to compare a U.S. citizen with a FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANT and they are NOT the same!!!—my addition)
The Guantanamo decision will create headaches for the federal courts. (THIS IS HIS FIRST COMMENT THAT HAS MADE SENSE!!!—my addition) The process of granting hearings to the detainees will be messy (AND INAPPROPRIATE and UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!—my addition) and at times frustrating. I’m confident that in the end, the system will work. (Doesn’t that make it all better now? Who cares if he is confident?—my addition) George W. Bush may not trust America’s basic values (NONSENSE!!!—my addition) and highest ideals, but I do. (Doesn’t that make you feel better? Unfortunately, the decision of the Court does not follow either. IT IS A USURPATION OF POWER!!!—my addition)
This ruling is simply an illegal edict by a Supreme Court that enjoys rewriting the Constitution of the United States. THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!! THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!! THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!!
Article I, Section 8 declares “The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water….” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” NOT ANY FEDERAL COURT; NOT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
Historically, when Congress has not made such rules during time of war, who do you think made such rules? The Supreme Court??? NO!!! NEVER!!! It has been the President under his power as commander in chief of the armed forces—Article II, Section 2. Does the Supreme Court have the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water?” NOT ACCORDING TO THE CONSTUTITION OF THE UNITED STATES!!! If that power is so listed, please tell me where it is because I have some knowledge of the Constitution and I have NEVER read it in the CONSTITUTION! NEVER!!! I haven’t read it because it is NOT in the CONSTITUTION!!!!!
“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 5:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home