Cody O'Connor

Unfoutuanatly you're right. One reason I like parties though is because if you're one of these people who's not as informed as others, you know how to vote by party. And you're also right about it being pretty obvious that the Republicans lost. As I stated before elsewhere, I knew we'd lose, and actually I'm quite pleased that we lost so much less than predicted by past historical patterns.

The whole problem is that we have no legitamite third party. If we did they could be a party who people would know instantly what it stood for. I think that's a long time in coming frankly, but maybe with people like Lieberman (who I'm not a big fan of, but hey, he's better than most Democrats and many Republicans) we're on our way. It'll be slow though. I know that for now I wouldn't join any third parties.
 

It is official, the Democrats have taken the Senate as well.

AP Article excerpt: Democrats wrested control of the Senate from Republicans Wednesday with an upset victory in Virginia, giving the party complete domination of Capitol Hill for the first time since 1994. Jim Webb's squeaker win over incumbent Sen. George Allen gave Democrats their 51st seat in the Senate, an astonishing turnabout at the hands of voters unhappy with Republican scandal and unabated violence in Iraq. Allen was the sixth Republican incumbent senator defeated in Tuesday's elections. The Senate had teetered at 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans for most of Wednesday, with Virginia hanging in the balance. Webb's victory ended Republican hopes of eking out a 50-50 split, with Vice President Dick Cheney wielding tie-breaking authority. (11/8/2006. Associated Press)

The Democrats are certainly no where near as corrupt as the Republicans. That's laughable. The old Republican congress was the most corrupt congress in the history of our country.

I'm going to disagree with your lesser of two evils arguement. Yesterday was a victory for the American people.

I expect the Democrats to at least try to live up to their promises. How much they accomplish remains to be seen, but everything I've heard about what they want to do sounds good. They have my support. Seeing as they'll be lookin out for the interests of all Americans instead of just the wealthiest -- I don't see how they could possibly do a worse job.

Lieberman is a selfish jerk. He lost the primary and he should have bowed to the will of the people. But Joe decided it was more important that he remain in the Senate than do what was best for his party.

Robert M. Said... I'm quite pleased that we lost so much less than predicted by past historical patterns.

Yea, OK. Personally I think you've lost it. This is completely delusional thinking. There are no "historical patterns" to back up what you say -- otherwise you would have given us some proof. Over on your blog you referred to the congressional seats the Democrats lost in 1994 during the Clinton administration. I pointed out that comparing TWO presidents and TWO midterm elections does NOT yield "historical" data.

If you want to talk about historical data how about the fact that the Democrats have historically controlled the house? Prior to the Republicans taking control in 1995 the Democrats were in the majority since 1955. That's FOURTY years. Now we have it back again and are looking forward to another 40 years of rule.
 

Lieberman is a selfish jerk. He lost the primary and he should have bowed to the will of the people.

I believe the people spoke when they ELECTED him.
 

I meant the people of his (former) party. They rejected him in the primary.

In the election more Republicans voted for him than Democrats. The only reason he ran as an independant is because he cared more about retaining his job than about doing what was best for his party and for the country.
 

So you're saying that only Democrats are "the people?" Ah. I see. That's...interesting.
 

When it comes to who will represent them, yes. Don't know a lot about how elections work, do you? Interesting. One would assume that someone who had their own political blog would be a little better informed.
 

What are you talking about? Are you saying that NO Democrats voted for Lieberman? How'd he win then? Do you know how elections work sir?
 

I said something confusing? My entire point was that the MAJORITY of Democrats selected Lamont in the PRIMARY. After which Lieberman should have stepped aside. I never said anything about how many Democrats did or did not vote for Lieberman in the election.

Clearly you don't know how elections work -- this and the nonsense concerning "past historical patterns" is proof enough.
 

You said he should "bow down to the will of the poeople." He did that when he lost the primary ans ran, and won as an independant. Just because he didn't bow down to the will of the Democrats doesn't mean he didn't bow to the will of the people, who voted him in. Your party made a mistake kicking him out, and lost a seat through thier intolerance of a different viewpoint. Accusing me of not understanding the election process will not change that.
 

He wasn't an independant. He WAS a Democrat. But not -- as it turns out -- a very loyal one. One would think that being a Democrat means you also support the Democratic party. Not so in Joe's case. He only supported himself. This doesn't have anything to do with "intolerance". The Democrats selected whom they thought best represented them (someone against, instead of in favor of, the war in Iraq).

It is EXTREMELY clear that you don't understand how parties select their canidates. I'm not "accusing" you of not understanding the election process. I'm stating it is a FACT that you do not.

The Democrats did NOT make a mistake.
 

I find it a bit disturbing that any Democrat that dares stray from the parties strict radical ideas is instantly looked upon as a traitor and is kicked out. God forbid you say what you think is right, rather than what the party has told you to say. It sometimes makes me wonder if it's a party or some kind of sick cult.

Point is, I don't trust the Dems farther than I can throw them. And I'm no athlete.
 

Dervish what are you talking about? He was a Democrat. The Democrats crucified him. He left, ran as an independent and won, costing the Dems a seat. It has nothing to do with primaries. And you said nothing about primaries in the comment I was reffering to, you said "the people." Democrats are not the only people. You can accuse me of not knowing how things work all you want, it doesn't change the fact that your party dropped the ball. Everyone knows it, stop denying it. It makes you look bad.

Cody, what you say is true. It's scary that ANY party would throw someone out for not agreeing completely with party lines. We don't throw McCain out after all, and us Republicans don't like him a whole lot.
 

Robert M. Said... It has nothing to do with primaries. And you said nothing about primaries in the comment I was reffering to, you said "the people".

Republicans do NOT vote for the canidate they want to represent the Democrats in the primary! Democrats and ONLY DEMOCRATS vote for the canidate they want to represent them. Thus when I said "the people" rejected him, one could logically conclude I was referring to Democrats. Unless said person hasn't a clue as to how elections work.

The only one who is making himself look bad is YOU.

Cody O'Connor said... I find it a bit disturbing that any Democrat that dares stray from the parties strict radical ideas is instantly looked upon as a traitor and is kicked out.

What the hell are you talking about? Ned Lamont challenged Lieberman in the primaries and the people (DEMOCRATS) spoke. They SELECTED Lamont to represent them. Don't you believe in democracy?

Robert M. Said... You can accuse me of not knowing how things work all you want, it doesn't change the fact that your party dropped the ball.

How, exactly, did we "drop the ball"? Are you saying that Ned Lamont should have been FORBIDDEN from challenging Lieberman? Should the results of the primary -- which Ned Lamont WON -- been thrown out?

I guess neither of you supports the Democratic process. Not suprising considering the Right's long history of suppressing african american and minority votes.
 

Republicans do NOT vote for the canidate they want to represent the Democrats in the primary! Democrats and ONLY DEMOCRATS vote for the canidate they want to represent them. Thus when I said "the people" rejected him, one could logically conclude I was referring to Democrats. Unless said person hasn't a clue as to how elections work.

No actually most people would assume that when you say "the people" and it's a Senatorial race, you mean the people of that state.

I guess neither of you supports the Democratic process. Not suprising considering the Right's long history of suppressing african american and minority votes.

What? Liebermam was voted in. How is saying that "not supporting the democratic process?" You've lost me there. And what's this crap with suppresing votes? That was totally out of the blue. Are you just throwing mud?
 

"What the hell are you talking about? Ned Lamont challenged Lieberman in the primaries and the people (DEMOCRATS) spoke. They SELECTED Lamont to represent them. Don't you believe in democracy?"

And your point is? The Democrats voted out Lieberman because he stood for what he believed in instead of what the party believed in. And no, I don't believe in Democracy. It's mob rule. I believe in a Republic.
 

Robert M. Said... No actually most people would assume that when you say "the people" and it's a Senatorial race, you mean the people of that state.

From my first post: He (Lieberman) lost the primary and he should have bowed to the will of the people.

Who else would vote for him in the primary except Democrats?? Democrats from Connecticut -- of course. Now you're suggesting that I meant Democrats from OTHER states could vote in the Connecticut primary? This is getting ridiculous! You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about but somehow that fact is supposed to make ME look bad?

Robert M. Said... What? Liebermam was voted in. How is saying that "not supporting the democratic process?" You've lost me there.

I notice that you disregarded my question regarding HOW, exactly, we "droped the ball"? Are you saying that Ned Lamont should have been FORBIDDEN from challenging Lieberman? Should the results of the primary -- which Ned Lamont WON -- been thrown out?

You don't support the democratic process because you, like Joe, decided that the primary results were meaningless. In the primary he ran as a Democrat and was rejected. In the primary he did NOT run as an independant. In the primary ZERO people voted for him to run as an independant.

If he gave a damn about the Democratic party he would have dropped out!! If he wanted to run as an independant he should have declared his intention to leave the Democratic party BEFORE the primary. Running as a Democrat during the primary ethically bound him to abide by the primary results. Instead he decided he would disregard the primary results and run anyway. Because he's a selfish jerk.

What's with this crap about "throwing mud"? You've lost me there. My point in bringing up the long history of Republicans suppresing votes was to illuminate the fact that your side only cares about winning, NOT about what the voters actually want. Winning is the only thing that matters to your side and you'll cheat to do it.

If you're interested in learning the truth regarding Republican voter suppression I suggest reading Greg Palast's book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" which details exactly how the Republicans stole Florida in 2000. This information can also be found on Mr. Palast's website. See the article, "Jim Crow Revived in Cyberspace" for information on how the 2000 election was stolen, "How They Stole Ohio" for information on how the 2004 election was stolen, and "Virginia, Floridated" for information on how they nearly stole the 2006 midterm election in Virginia.

Cody O. Said... And your point is? The Democrats voted out Lieberman because he stood for what he believed in instead of what the party believed in.

Exactly. I don't understand what your point or objection is. We should do away with primaries? Anybody be allowed to run as a canidate for whatever party they choose? Regardless of their platform? I'm not at all surprised that you don't believe in democracy. Only 40 percent of eligible voters participated in the midterm elections -- if the turnout had been higher the Republicans would have lost by an even larger margin. And they'd be out of power permanately if everyone voted (your so-called "mob rule").
 

Who else would vote for him in the primary except Democrats?? Democrats from Connecticut -- of course. Now you're suggesting that I meant Democrats from OTHER states could vote in the Connecticut primary?

No, what I'm saying is that he did bow to the will of the Democratic voters, by leaving and running as an independant, then winning, thus bowing to will of all the people of Conneticut. This isn't hard for you to understand is it? I could make it simpler if you need me to.
 

And what I mean when I say you dropped the ball was that you could have elected Lieberman and won a Dem. seat but you didn't. Your voters screwed up. I still don't see how this makes me "hate the Democratic process."
 

And WHY would Democrats vote for someone who holds the Republican position on the war?

He most certainly did not "bow to the will of the Democratic voters"! Joe Lieberman asked them if he could represent them and they REJECTED him. If he wanted to run as an independant WHY did he ask them in the first place?? Fact is that he did and when they said "no" he should have called it quits.

It's about party loyalty. Joe doesn't have any. I can't make my argument any simpler. The voters didn't screw up. Joe did. He screwed his FORMER party out of a senate seat.

Should the voters have said to themselves, "We're against the war in Iraq, and Joe is for it, but we'll vote for him anyway because if we don't he'll run as an independant and win"? First of all, how the hell could anyone have know that? Secondly, I am POSITIVE that the Democrats from Connecticut who voted against him in the primary expected him to step aside and endorse THEIR selection, Ned Lamont.

This "dropped the ball" argument of yours doesn't make any sense. For the voters to have not "dropped the ball" they would have had to vote for someone who doesn't represent their views. Which is why I said that you don't support the democratic process.
 

I don't know why we're so worried about Joe Lieberman. He's one senator. I'm still worried about the other 500 congressmen who are screwing the people over. But that's just me.
 

Cody O'Connor said... I'm still worried about the other 500 congressmen who are screwing the people over. But that's just me.

Not all of them are screwing the people over. That would be mainly the Republicans, and come January there will be less of them. We just voted in a lot of good Democrats who ran because they thought they could make a difference for the people of their state -- instead of how much they could sell their votes for.

Cody O'Connor said... I don't know why we're so worried about Joe Lieberman. He's one senator.

I'm not the one who only wanted to discuss Joe Lieberman. I only referenced him in a couple of sentences of my original post. It was Robert M. who ignored everything else I had written and focused in on my objections to Joe running as an independant.

I'd still like him to explain what the hell he meant when he said, "I'm quite pleased that we lost so much less than predicted by past historical patterns". I'm not holding my breath though. Obviously the reason for his silence is that he was just BSing.

BTW Cody, are you going to acknowledge the fact that the Democrats also now have a majority in the Senate?
 

don't know why we're so worried about Joe Lieberman. He's one senator. I'm still worried about the other 500 congressmen who are screwing the people over. But that's just me.

I'm not worried, I just think it's an ironic twist. Besides, he's an independant. Thought you liked independants.

I'd still like him to explain what the hell he meant when he said, "I'm quite pleased that we lost so much less than predicted by past historical patterns".

I explained this already and you were quick to deny the facts I stated. Why should I try again when all you're going to do is deny that the examples I cited ever happened (despite the fact that you can look them up...)
 

"BTW Cody, are you going to acknowledge the fact that the Democrats also now have a majority in the Senate?"

Yeah, I should probably change the posts title.
 

"I'm not worried, I just think it's an ironic twist. Besides, he's an independant. Thought you liked independants."

More than party candidates, yes. But that doesn't mean I agree with much of what he in particular has to say. I honestly think Joe is a borderline Statist.
 

Robert M. Said... Why should I try again when all you're going to do is deny that the examples I cited ever happened (despite the fact that you can look them up...)

That is a lie. I didn't deny that the Democrats lost seats in the 1994 midterm. I'm denying that it established a "historical pattern".

Robert M. Said... I explained this already and you were quick to deny the facts I stated.

What your argument boils down to is: The number of seats the Democrats lost in the 1994 midterm election set a precident. From that date forward -- if any midterm results in a Republican loss they should be considered to have beaten the odds if they lose less seats than the Democrats did in 1994.

As I pointed out before, your argument is complete poppycock. You're just trying to twist the facts to support your ridiculous claim that the results of this election only amount to "a light slap on the wrist". Even your president admitted it was a "thumping". I -- along with other Democrats -- say it is a mandate for peace.

You were also BSing when you said, "Our way is to do what we've always done, admit defeat... That's the Republican way". So, according to you, claims of voter fraud aren't the "Republican way"? Republicans don't "whine" or complain? They accept defeat and move on? Then how do you explain this post from a Republican blog?

Cody Said... I honestly think Joe is a borderline Statist.

What are you basing this on? I can think of a few reasons why I might agree with you. For instance, Joe voted "yes" on the PATRIOT Act and getting rid of habeas corpus. All of these vest more power in the state and erode our individual freedoms. But I doubt that these were the reasons you were thinking of.
 

More than party candidates, yes. But that doesn't mean I agree with much of what he in particular has to say. I honestly think Joe is a borderline Statist.

Yeah. I don't like all of his policies either. Too left wing. However at least he supports the war, and his election, well it's something the Democrats will regret and maybe learn from.

Dervish said... and getting rid of habeas corpus.

Lincoln did that too by the way. Do you hate him like you hate Bush? Was he wrong to do so?
 

What your argument boils down to is: The number of seats the Democrats lost in the 1994 midterm election set a precident. From that date forward -- if any midterm results in a Republican loss they should be considered to have beaten the odds if they lose less seats than the Democrats did in 1994.

There's plenty of precedents. That one set a modern precedent. And yes, it WAS less this election than expected by modern electoral precedents. If the situation had been reversed I still would have said what I said. The party makes no difference, it was a historical precedent. End of story.

And why do you object to my personal satisfaction with the election results so much? Do you think I should be pessimistic like you? Should I complain of fraud like your party does? Sorry, but I don't do that. And I fail to see why you want me to be unhappy with the election results anyway. Were you hoping Republicans would go into fits of despair or something? That’s just a little sadistic don’t you think? Face facts, I will take the election results as what they are. I will see the good of it and I will not be pessimistic about it. I will not complain about it for the next two years like your party did the entire time mine had power. You can’t change this, so why try?
 

Cody, I have to agree that I've been disappointed in the GOP lately too, and I think this loss of both the House and Senate may very well teach them a lesson. I believe that they tried to hard once they got into Washington to molify the Democrats and by doing so lost the confidence of we who sent them there in the first place. Washington DC is run completely by liberals and they wanted to "fit in." Also, we have too many RINO's in our party. McCain, for instance, should be a Democrat. I don't think we're going to see a viable third party anytime soon, so lets hope the GOP has learned it's lesson.
 

Robert M. Said... Lincoln did that too by the way. Do you hate him like you hate Bush? Was he wrong to do so?

I haven't read a lot about it. I do know there was a rebellion going on at the time, which -- according to the Constitution -- is one of the situations under which habeas corpus can be suspended.

From the Constitutional Rights Foundation: In a section limiting the powers of Congress (Art. I, Sec. 9), the Constitution states: 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.

Also, according to a 1866 Supreme Court decision suspension of habeas corpus is unconstitutional when civilian courts are still operating; the Constitution only provides for suspension of habeas corpus if civilian courts are actually forced closed. (from Wikipedia)

NONE of those situations exist today. There hasn't been a invasion or rebellion. The civilian courts are still operating. Therefore the Military Commissions Act is unconstitutional. I hope that this comes before the Supreme court and is struck down. If the Supreme court will do the right thing remains to be seen -- seeing as bush has stacked the court in his favor. Darn right I hate bush and his dictatorial power grabs.

Robert M. Said... yes, it WAS less this election than expected by modern electoral precedents. If the situation had been reversed I still would have said what I said. The party makes no difference, it was a historical precedent. End of story.

From Minnesota Public Radio.org: Since World War II, the party in control of the White House has lost an average 31 House seats and six Senate seats in the second midterm election of a president's tenure in office. (11/7/2006)

The Republicans lost 6 Senate seats and 34 House seats (with 5 House races still undecided). Which means they DID lose the "average" number of Senate seats and they lost MORE than the "average" number of house seats. As far as I am concerned this puts to rest your claim that the Republicans "lost so much less than predicted by past historical patterns". They did not. End of story.

Robert M. Said... And why do you object to my personal satisfaction with the election results so much?

I don't give a damn about your "personal satisfaction". What I'm objecting to is the fact that you're LYING.

Further proof that -- when it comes to politics -- you usually don't have a clue what you're talking about... like when you claimed that the phrase "seperation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution but from a letter Thomas Jefferson sent his wife! It isn't in the Constitution, but that fact is irrelevant because that phrase does serve as a summary of the intent of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. And it wasn't from a letter he sent his wife -- it is from a letter he sent the Danbury Baptists.
 

From the Constitutional Rights Foundation: In a section limiting the powers of Congress (Art. I, Sec. 9), the Constitution states: 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.

The keyword is invasion. Like when we catch the terrorists trying to get in our country. Plus this makes no difference, nor any of your Constitution links, since technically the Constitution does not apply to anyone who is not a citizen of the US.

The Republicans lost 6 Senate seats and 34 House seats (with 5 House races still undecided). Which means they DID lose the "average" number of Senate seats and they lost MORE than the "average" number of house seats. As far as I am concerned this puts to rest your claim that the Republicans "lost so much less than predicted by past historical patterns". They did not. End of story.

Ok, I stand corrected. I'm still not going to get that pessimistic about that fact though.

And it wasn't from a letter he sent his wife -- it is from a letter he sent the Danbury Baptists.

Yeah I got two letters he sent confused. Big deal. YOU got a letter he sent and the fricken US Constitution confused. Who's the one who doesn't know what he's talking about here?

My point still stands that there is no seperation in the Constitution. All the Constution forbids is a state church. Which we don't have.
 

And to add to your points, Robby, what gives people the idea that church and state is binded in this country in the first place? If church and state were together, there would be a Church of the United States, and the US governments laws would be based strongly off that churches faith. Is that happening in America? No. I am with you that we shouldn't have a Theocracy, but you guys are complaining about a few Christmas trees on public property. Get the hell over it.
 

And this coming from you Cody, an agnostic.

But yeah why should my relegion be the only one not allowed to display symbols? I'd allow Jewish ones, that's for sure. And Kwanzaa stuff too, even if I don't agree with that particular holiday. In fact the Constitution even says that the state will not restrict the free practice of relegion!
 

^ Kwanzaa's not relegious I realize but you know what I mean.
 

I did refer to the "seperation of church and state" clause on your blog. I should have said the Establishment clause. I'll admit I identified it incorrectly. I know that EXACT phrase isn't in the constitution. I did NOT confuse a "letter he sent and the fricken US Constitution".

Robert M. Said... My point still stands that there is no seperation in the Constitution. All the Constution forbids is a state church.

No, your point doesn't stand. The Supreme Court has ruled on this matter, and decided that the intent of the Establishment Clause WAS to erect a "wall of separation between church and State". Just like Thomas Jefferson said. In a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptists.

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black held, "The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. ... Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State". (from wikipedia)

And

From Seperation of Church and State.org: The First Amendment does not say that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of religion. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the clause means that Congress shall make no law on that subject. The ban is not just on establishments of religion but on laws respecting them, a fact that allows a law to fall short of creating an establishment yet still be unconstitutional. (The case for separation of church and state)

Cody O. Said... but you guys are complaining about a few Christmas trees on public property. Get the hell over it.

What?! There's a hell of a lot more to the argument than a few Christmas trees! What about bush's unconstitutional Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives? My problem with this program was that it was set up to buy African American votes.

Robert M. Said... The keyword is invasion. Like when we catch the terrorists trying to get in our country. Plus this makes no difference, nor any of your Constitution links, since technically the Constitution does not apply to anyone who is not a citizen of the US.

Get real. "Invasion" refers to an actual invasion -- by an enemy army. We haven't been invaded. So far as Habeas Corpus is concerned, the Supreme court disagees with you.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) ... Although by the terms used in the Court's holdings they were apparently limited to "citizen-detainees", the last paragraph of section III, D of the O'Connor plurality (four justices: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Breyer) relies on the Geneva Convention and states that Habeas Corpus should be available to an "alleged enemy combatant".

This ruling was the reason that bush pushed the Military Commissions Act. However, as I already pointed out, this act is unconstitutional.
 

I did refer to the "seperation of church and state" clause on your blog. I should have said the Establishment clause. I'll admit I identified it incorrectly. I know that EXACT phrase isn't in the constitution. I did NOT confuse a "letter he sent and the fricken US Constitution".

The point still remains though. There is no separation of church and state, only a prohibition of establishing a state church.

And what does your court case prove anyway, that one case determines the US Constitution's policy forever after? That's what the Supreme Court does, they decide based on each separate case. However, the exact wording of the Constitution does not say anything about church and state.

From Seperation of Church and State.org: The First Amendment does not say that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of religion. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the clause means that Congress shall make no law on that subject. The ban is not just on establishments of religion but on laws respecting them, a fact that allows a law to fall short of creating an establishment yet still be unconstitutional. (The case for separation of church and state)

That's a nice argument and all, but I like to go by what the Constitution itself says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So actually we are encouraged by the Constitution to exercise our religion. There's no separation thing in here at all, rather the opposite.

My problem with this program was that it was set up to buy African American votes.

Er, don't you always claim that the Republicans try to dissuade black voters? Now you're trying to say we're buying them? Make up your mind.

Get real. "Invasion" refers to an actual invasion -- by an enemy army.


There is no enemy army. And it hardly matters since invasion is classified as: an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army.

Yes it does say esp. by an army, but not always by an army, by definition we are being invaded!

And again, your court case example is only one single case. And the US Constitution, which as you stated, approves the taking away of habeas corpus in times of invasion, trumps every other US law, as you should know.
 

Robert M. said... The point still remains though. There is no separation of church and state, only a prohibition of establishing a state church. ...what does your court case prove anyway...

It proves you're wrong. According to Alexander Hamilton, "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning...

In the case I cited in my prior post, Everson v. Board of Education, The Supreme Court did ascertain the meaning of the Establishment Clause, and ruled that it meant that there is a "wall of separation between Church and State". End of discussion.

Robert M. Said... So actually we are encouraged by the Constitution to exercise our religion. There's no separation thing in here at all, rather the opposite.

That's total nonsense. No need for me to respond.

Robert M. Said... Er, don't you always claim that the Republicans try to dissuade black voters? Now you're trying to say we're buying them? Make up your mind.

No, I said suppress, not dissuade. Which they do because most of the time African Americans vote Democratic. You're saying that they can't also try to persuade African American citizens to vote Republican? That doesn't make any sense. Who says they can't use both tactics? Perhaps you should call the RNC and tell them they need to choose one, and only one, method for cheating.

Robert M. Said... by definition we are being invaded!

No we are not. I don't need to argue the point beyond that because your conclusion is utterly ridiculous.

Robert M. Said... And the US Constitution, which as you stated, approves the taking away of habeas corpus in times of invasion, trumps every other US law, as you should know.

Again, we aren't being invaded. And even if we were the Supreme Court decided that suspension of habeas corpus is unconstitutional when civilian courts are still operating; the Constitution only provides for suspension of habeas corpus if civilian courts are actually forced closed. (from Wikipedia).

The civilian courts are still operating, as you well know.

Your outright dismissal of Supreme Court cases shows that you have no idea how our judicial system works. Precedents play a HUGE role in determining how laws are interpereted in the future. Yet you act as if my citing these cases is meaningless. You are FLAT WRONG about that. They aren't meaningless -- they are EXTREMELY important.

Thank you for making this one this one of the easiest reponses I've written in a while. Most of what you wrote was laughably ridiculous -- thus very easy for me to dismiss. What I don't understand though -- is if you didn't have any real arguments why did you even bother responding? Do you just like throwing mud?
 

It proves you're wrong. According to Alexander Hamilton, "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning...

In the case I cited in my prior post, Everson v. Board of Education, The Supreme Court did ascertain the meaning of the Establishment Clause, and ruled that it meant that there is a "wall of separation between Church and State". End of discussion.

How does any of that refute what I said? That it was for one case? And that case only? That's how the Supreme Court works. You've blown smoke at the issue but nowhere have you refuted my point. One case does not rewrite the Constitution, merely INTERPRETS it, based on the particulars of the ONE CASE You seem to be having trouble with this.

That's total nonsense. No need for me to respond.

Total nonsense? I linked right to the US Constitution. Is the Constitution nonsense to you, or just the parts you don't like?

No, I said suppress, not dissuade. Which they do because most of the time African Americans vote Democratic. You're saying that they can't also try to persuade African American citizens to vote Republican? That doesn't make any sense. Who says they can't use both tactics? Perhaps you should call the RNC and tell them they need to choose one, and only one, method for cheating.

Or maybe you need to stop being paranoid. You say Republicans buy votes and then try to stop the votes they’ve bought? I’m sorry, but that makes no sense. Why don't you just admit you contradicted yourself and we'll move on?

No we are not. I don't need to argue the point beyond that because your conclusion is utterly ridiculous.

Again, I linked to the dictionary. Do you also think the dictionary is ridiculous? Well who knows, maybe you do. Doesn't make you right though. I gave you a definition from a site you use often yourself.

Again, we aren't being invaded. And even if we were the Supreme Court decided that suspension of habeas corpus is unconstitutional when civilian courts are still operating; the Constitution only provides for suspension of habeas corpus if civilian courts are actually forced closed. (from Wikipedia).

Again, it's right in black and white in the dictionary. We are being invaded, by definition and since when does the writ of Habeas Corpus or the Constitution apply to non-US citizens ANYWAY? I noticed you totally ignored that point I made. Why is that exactly?

Your outright dismissal of Supreme Court cases shows that you have no idea how our judicial system works.

I don't believe I dismissed them. I said they applied to their cases and not Constitutional law, because that's what the Supreme Court DOES. It doesn't decide something and then put it in the Constitution, it decides things when the Constitution isn’t clear in a PARTICULAR CASE. Therefore it is impossible to say that the Constitution does or does not protect or say something based on only one set of circumstances. Maybe it's not me that doesn’t know how it works.
 

Robert M. Said... How does any of that refute what I said? That it was for one case? And that case only?

So for that ONE CASE ONLY there was a seperation of church and state?! WRONG. The court ruled. It said that the Establishment clause means exactly what Jefferson said it meant in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. That is how I refuted what you said.

Robert M. Said... Total nonsense? I linked right to the US Constitution. Is the Constitution nonsense to you, or just the parts you don't like?

Your interpertation of what the Constitution says is total nonsense, not the Constitution itself. It doesn't say that, as I have already explained.

Robert M. Said... Again, I linked to the dictionary. Do you also think the dictionary is ridiculous?

So the hell what if you linked to the dictionary?! That was NOT the framers intended meaning of "invasion"! Give me a quote from ANY politican who is saying this. You can't because NONE are.

Robert M. Said... You say Republicans buy votes and then try to stop the votes they’ve bought? I’m sorry, but that makes no sense. Why don't you just admit you contradicted yourself and we'll move on?

I won't admit that I've "contradicted myself" because I haven't. I never said they were doing both things in the same district at the same time.

Robert M. Said... I don't believe I dismissed them. I said they applied to their cases and not Constitutional law, because that's what the Supreme Court DOES. It doesn't decide something and then put it in the Constitution...

Yeesh, you don't even know what the Supreme Court does! It ONLY hears cases involving the constitutionality of laws. It's decisions apply to ALL similar cases which may arrise in the future, NOT just a particular case! The supreme court interprets the Constitution! It's decisions DO have a bearing on future cases!

You need to take a government class.

Robert M. Said... and since when does the writ of Habeas Corpus or the Constitution apply to non-US citizens ANYWAY? I noticed you totally ignored that point I made. Why is that exactly?

I didn't ignore that point. I already answered that question. The writ of Habeas Corpus applies to non-US citizens since the SUPREME COURT decided it did!

From my EARLIER post...

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) ...the last paragraph of section III, D of the O'Connor plurality (four justices: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Breyer) relies on the Geneva Convention and states that Habeas Corpus should be available to an "alleged enemy combatant".
 

Robby, you don't really believe we should get rid of Habeas Corpus do you. I mean, come on. We can't just throw people in prison willy nilly. No government should ever have that kind of power.
 

So for that ONE CASE ONLY there was a seperation of church and state?! WRONG. The court ruled. It said that the Establishment clause means exactly what Jefferson said it meant in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. That is how I refuted what you said.

But how does this change the Constitution? Again, the case decided that in those circumstances it meant that. In others it might not. That's what the Supreme Court does.

Your interpertation of what the Constitution says is total nonsense, not the Constitution itself. It doesn't say that, as I have already explained.

Again, I linked it. I don't even know how you can call that my interpretation. I didn't write the document you know.

So the hell what if you linked to the dictionary?! That was NOT the framers intended meaning of "invasion"! Give me a quote from ANY politican who is saying this. You can't because NONE are.

It wasn't? Really? Did the framers speak English? Because again, the English definition is the one I linked to in the Dictionary. Don't you think that if they didn't mean the definition of invasion they wouldn't have used the word invasion? Or are you insinuating that our founding fathers didn't know the meaning of the word when they wrote this? And what do today's politician's definitions of it have to do with anything? It's not them that determine what a word means.

Yeesh, you don't even know what the Supreme Court does! It ONLY hears cases involving the constitutionality of laws. It's decisions apply to ALL similar cases which may arrise in the future, NOT just a particular case! The supreme court interprets the Constitution! It's decisions DO have a bearing on future cases!

They have a bearing yes. It's called a precedent. However a precedent is not sufficient to change the Constitution. i.e. a case in 2006 will have a different outcome than a case in say 1858. If what you said was true, there would be no reason to even have the newer case because the precedent would have been the supreme law. That's not how it works however. In short, the precedent does not establish by itself the verdict.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) ...the last paragraph of section III, D of the O'Connor plurality (four justices: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Breyer) relies on the Geneva Convention and states that Habeas Corpus should be available to an "alleged enemy combatant"

Again though, this refers to enemy combatants who apply for the Geneva Conventions. Terrorists, because they fight in civilian garb, forfeit their right to the Geneva Conventions under the Convention laws, and thus, through this ruling, also forfeit their rights to the Constitution.

Robby, you don't really believe we should get rid of Habeas Corpus do you. I mean, come on. We can't just throw people in prison willy nilly. No government should ever have that kind of power

Not over their own citizens no. But over terrorists? Of course they should. The terrorists forfeited their right to habeas corpus by fighting in civilian clothing outside the jurisdiction of an organized state. They forfeit all rights by doing this. The decision was theirs, and if you don’t think the government hasn’t the right to do that you sure as hell can’t think that we had a right to invade Iraq, something much more dramatic. I believe we had the right to do both, and the terrorists had all the chances in the world to follow the rules of war. They didn’t, so they don’t get the benefits of the Convention, just like our soldiers didn’t when fighting them.

Oh and dervish that reminds me, since you seem to think that the first case decided in the Supreme Court makes that law concrete you should know that Lincoln was able to suspend habeas corpus in the Civil War, so I guess, according to your own philosiphy and arguments, it is Constitutional after all.
 

Robert M. said... But how does this change the Constitution? Again, the case decided that in those circumstances it meant that. In others it might not. That's what the Supreme Court does.

The Constitution isn't "changed" literally! No new passages are added, or rewritten. What changes is the interpretation. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this?

Robert M. Said... Again, I linked it. I don't even know how you can call that my interpretation. I didn't write the document you know.

You said that the ONLY thing the Establishment clause does is prohibit a state church. You're wrong, as I already pointed out multiple times! Among other things it also established a "wall" between church and state -- which is what Jefferson said and what the Supreme court (as per the case I cited previously) agreed with.

Robert M. Said... It wasn't? Really?

No it was not.

Robert M. Said... And what do today's politician's definitions of it have to do with anything? It's not them that determine what a word means.

My point was that I doubt you could find A SINGLE PERSON ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET who agrees with you. Because that isn't what the framers meant. They were talking about invasion by an enemy ARMY. The dictionary definition of "invasion" does not prove otherwise. This is just a bunch of nonsense you made up.

Robert M. Said... They have a bearing yes. It's called a precedent. However a precedent is not sufficient to change the Constitution. i.e. a case in 2006 will have a different outcome than a case in say 1858. If what you said was true, there would be no reason to even have the newer case because the precedent would have been the supreme law. That's not how it works however.

Yes, verdicts can be overturned. But until a verdict is overturned it DOES have a bearing on the Constitution, existing laws, and current and future cases. According to you, the Roe v Wade verdict (for instance) should only have allowed "Jane Roe" to receive the abortion she wanted. But it did more than that. It overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion (that were inconsistent with the decision). If Supreme Court decisions are only relevant to the case being decided -- why were all those other laws affected???

Robert M. Said... Again though, this refers to enemy combatants who apply for the Geneva Conventions. Terrorists, because they fight in civilian garb, forfeit their right to the Geneva Conventions under the Convention laws, and thus, through this ruling, also forfeit their rights to the Constitution.

You don't "apply" for Geneva Conventions! What "ruling" are you referring to? The case I cited said, "Habeas Corpus should be available to an alleged enemy combatant". "Enemy combantant" is the BS category the bush administration INVENTED so that they could disregard the Geneva Conventions. It refers to a enemy combantant not in uniform or belonging to an enemy NATION'S army -- so what the Supreme court ruled is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you're claiming. No rights were "forfeited".

Robert M. Said... Not over their own citizens no. But over terrorists? Of course they should.

So, according to you, the US military makes ZERO mistakes? We can be 100 percent certain that everyone picked up and sent to Gitmo belongs there? If that were true why have people been released? Yet you want to take away the right of all potentially innocent people to question WHY they are being held? Never mind the fact that people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. If you aren't a US citizen you're guilty until proven innocent? I find that position reprehensible.

Robert M. Said... since you seem to think that the first case decided in the Supreme Court makes that law concrete...

I never said that once a Supreme Court renders a decision their ruling is set in stone for all time. Laws can be changed and verdicts overturned. Earlier I cited a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that there is a "wall of separation between Church and State". You failed to provide evidence that the verdict was overturned or that a law was passed which says otherwise. Seeing as neither of these things have happened -- the verdict STANDS. End of discussion.

Robert M. Said... you should know that Lincoln was able to suspend habeas corpus in the Civil War, so I guess, according to your own philosiphy and arguments, it is Constitutional after all.

No, it is not. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during a REBELLION -- one of the instances during which it may be suspended -- according to the Constitution. Seeing as there isn't a rebellion currently taking place the Lincoln example has absolutely no bearing on the events of today.
 

The Constitution isn't "changed" literally! No new passages are added, or rewritten. What changes is the interpretation. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this?

Exactly. That's what I've been saying. Court cases don't change the document. Thank you for finally agreeing.

You said that the ONLY thing the Establishment clause does is prohibit a state church. You're wrong, as I already pointed out multiple times! Among other things it also established a "wall" between church and state -- which is what Jefferson said and what the Supreme court (as per the case I cited previously) agreed with.

Again, I linked to the Constitution, and there is no "wall" or "seperation" mentioned. Read it yourself.

My point was that I doubt you could find A SINGLE PERSON ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET who agrees with you. Because that isn't what the framers meant. They were talking about invasion by an enemy ARMY. The dictionary definition of "invasion" does not prove otherwise. This is just a bunch of nonsense you made up.

Please show me where it says "invasion by an army" rather than just "invasion." I have to take the word invasion for what it means, the defenition of invasion is right there in black and white. Disagreeing with the dictionary is really not making you look good.

Yes, verdicts can be overturned. But until a verdict is overturned it DOES have a bearing on the Constitution, existing laws, and current and future cases. According to you, the Roe v Wade verdict (for instance) should only have allowed "Jane Roe" to receive the abortion she wanted. But it did more than that. It overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion (that were inconsistent with the decision). If Supreme Court decisions are only relevant to the case being decided -- why were all those other laws affected???

They were affected becuase no one brought up another case. You're talking about the difference between a case and laws and two cases. It's totally different. Your R v. W comparison is completly irrelevent.

You don't "apply" for Geneva Conventions! What "ruling" are you referring to? The case I cited said, "Habeas Corpus should be available to an alleged enemy combatant". "Enemy combantant" is the BS category the bush administration INVENTED so that they could disregard the Geneva Conventions. It refers to a enemy combantant not in uniform or belonging to an enemy NATION'S army -- so what the Supreme court ruled is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you're claiming. No rights were "forfeited".

Exactly. The nation's army. Terrorists are not part of a national army. Therefore, the Geneva Conventions don't apply to them. That's exactly what I said. What part of this are you having a hard time with?

So, according to you, the US military makes ZERO mistakes? We can be 100 percent certain that everyone picked up and sent to Gitmo belongs there? If that were true why have people been released?

That's nice, except that I never held that position. How long did you spend typing a reply to a position I never held?

I never said that once a Supreme Court renders a decision their ruling is set in stone for all time. Laws can be changed and verdicts overturned. Earlier I cited a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that there is a "wall of separation between Church and State". You failed to provide evidence that the verdict was overturned or that a law was passed which says otherwise. Seeing as neither of these things have happened -- the verdict STANDS. End of discussion.

The verdict stands for that case. Not for all laws in the US. Again, what does an old case prove in reegard to today's laws. Answer: nothing.

No, it is not. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during a REBELLION -- one of the instances during which it may be suspended -- according to the Constitution. Seeing as there isn't a rebellion currently taking place the Lincoln example has absolutely no bearing on the events of today.

And also invasion. Or hadn't you understood what Antitam and Gettysburg were all about?
 

Robert M. said... Exactly. That's what I've been saying. Court cases don't change the document. Thank you for finally agreeing.

I am NOT agreeing with you! While the Constitution isn't "changed" literally, the interpretation can change based on Supreme Court decisions. What you're saying is that Supreme Court decisions DO NOT affect anything except the people in the case being decided. YOU ARE WRONG (which was the WHOLE POINT of my Roe v Wade example -- it PROVED you are wrong). I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU!

Robert M. Said... Again, I linked to the Constitution, and there is no "wall" or "seperation" mentioned. Read it yourself.

The Supreme Court decided otherwise. It interpereted the Establishment clause to mean that there is a wall.

Robert M. Said... Please show me where it says "invasion by an army" rather than just "invasion." I have to take the word invasion for what it means, the defenition of invasion is right there in black and white. Disagreeing with the dictionary is really not making you look good.

The framers did not foresee anything along the lines of terrorism. They were referring to an invasion by an enemy army. An army of another NATION. NOT a few individual terrorists. That's a simple statement of FACT.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that if ONE terrorist "invaded" the United states the president could suspend Habeas Corpus? GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF ONE PERSON WHO AGREES WITH YOU! Until you do that I am DONE debating this point. It is STUPID -- and clearly NOT what the framers intended. As I pointed out earlier.

Robert M. Said... They were affected because no one brought up another case. You're talking about the difference between a case and laws and two cases. It's totally different. Your R v. W comparison is completly irrelevent.

In response to your first sentence: Exactly. That's what I've been saying all along. Thank you for finally agreeing. As for the rest of what you said -- I have no response because I don't understand what you're saying.

Robert M. Said... Exactly. The nation's army. Terrorists are not part of a national army. Therefore, the Geneva Conventions don't apply to them. That's exactly what I said. What part of this are you having a hard time with?

That you can keep saying this when the SUPREME COURT DISAGREED WITH YOU!

From my EARLIER post...

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) ...the last paragraph of section III, D of the O'Connor plurality (four justices: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Breyer) relies on the Geneva Convention and states that Habeas Corpus should be available to an "alleged enemy combatant".

In other words people suspected of being terrorists or supporting terrorism DO have the right to habeus corpus. Which is the OPPOSITE of what you are saying.

Robert M. Said... That's nice, except that I never held that position. How long did you spend typing a reply to a position I never held?

I assumed that since you believe we should take habeus corpus rights away from suspected terrorists you MUST think that nobody in custody is "suspected" (they are all guilty and therefore they don't deserve the right of habeus corpus). Now you're ADMITTING that you support stripping INNOCENT PEOPLE of the right to habeus corpus?! YOU ARE A TERRIBLE PERSON. What other conclusion can I reach? Innocent people can be locked away forever and you don't have a problem with it? Because they aren't US citizens?

Robert M. Said... The verdict stands for that case. Not for all laws in the US. Again, what does an old case prove in regard to today's laws. Answer: nothing.

Wrong. Hence my Roe v Wade example. A ruling which affected the laws at the time it was handed down and CONTINUES to affect laws today. If an old case has become irrelevant then it is up to those who believe so to try and have that decision overturned. Until then THE VERDICT STANDS. Your answer of "nothing" is 100 percent incorrect.

Robert M. Said... And also invasion. Or hadn't you understood what Antitam and Gettysburg were all about?

Bull. Are you saying that we invaded ourselves? The South broke away and formed the Confederacy -- but that seperation wasn't recognized! Seeing as the North did not recognize the Confederacy as a seperate nation they could not "invade" the North! I fail to see what your point is in any case. This is a completely irrelevant argument.
 

I am NOT agreeing with you! While the Constitution isn't "changed" literally, the interpretation can change based on Supreme Court decisions. What you're saying is that Supreme Court decisions DO NOT affect anything except the people in the case being decided. YOU ARE WRONG (which was the WHOLE POINT of my Roe v Wade example -- it PROVED you are wrong). I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU!

First of all there's really no need for all the caps and second of all the RvW article did not prove that I was wrong. It's comparing a court case with that one court cases effect on laws yes? Whereas I am talking about a court case affecting, or not affecting, other cases, you understand? So in order to prove me wrong you'd have to show me an example where a court case automatically determined another case without a trial. I have so far seen none of these. I could be wrong. Show me an example if I am.

The Supreme Court decided otherwise. It interpereted the Establishment clause to mean that there is a wall.

Yes, in that case. But not for all cases after it. You see, as I said before, the Supreme Court decides each verdict on each case, as do all courts in the United States.

The framers did not foresee anything along the lines of terrorism. They were referring to an invasion by an enemy army. An army of another NATION. NOT a few individual terrorists. That's a simple statement of FACT.

Of course they foresaw terrorism. Heck, terrorism was already around. From the start the Barbary Corsairs and various national privateers (legalized pirates) were raiding US shipping constantly, causing terror on the high seas. Terrorism is nothing new. Besides, do you think they foresaw mass abortion? Because if not, that should be illegal too, according your theory yes? And I don't think you personally can speak for the founding fathers anyway. They put the word invasion, not invasion by an army. If we follow the text of the Constitution we must read it as invasion, not invasion by an army. That's just how it was written.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that if ONE terrorist "invaded" the United states the president could suspend Habeas Corpus? GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF ONE PERSON WHO AGREES WITH YOU! Until you do that I am DONE debating this point. It is STUPID -- and clearly NOT what the framers intended. As I pointed out earlier.

Hmm, how about Mr. Rumsfeld? I believe he would have. Anyway, I don't really care if you quit debating me on this issue as you threaten. I would naturally have to infer that you could not refute my point.

Oh an by the way here's some constructive criticism, and really, I'm not trying to insult you. But you seem to have no opinion yourself. You seem to be utterly preoccupied with the opinions of others rather than having your own philosophies and opinions. This would explain your need for a person who would agree with me when I state an opinion. (As it happens there are, as I've pointed out, however is it necessary?) Try to come up with these ideas on your own, don't be guided by simply what your party says. Anyway, hope you don't take offense to that, though you might. I'm only reporting what I see and trying to make some constructive comments.

In response to your first sentence: Exactly. That's what I've been saying all along. Thank you for finally agreeing. As for the rest of what you said -- I have no response because I don't understand what you're saying.

Well I explained it more detail above I think.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) ...the last paragraph of section III, D of the O'Connor plurality (four justices: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Breyer) relies on the Geneva Convention and states that Habeas Corpus should be available to an "alleged enemy combatant".

In other words people suspected of being terrorists or supporting terrorism DO have the right to habeus corpus. Which is the OPPOSITE of what you are saying.

Yes I know what you're trying to say. However you have to read the part about the Geneva Conventions. Again, if they're guided by the Geneva Conventions then logically we'd have to say that they are referring to people who get the benefits of the Conventions. Terrorists don't. They have two major things which exclude them: 1.) they fight in civilian garb, and 2.) they are not the organized defense forces of a formal nation. So follow the logic here. Case is meant for those who get Geneva Convention benefits, terrorists don't get these benefits, therefore case only applies to enemy combatants such as Saddam's "Republican Army" and such, not to enemy combatants such as terrorists.

I assumed that since you believe we should take habeus corpus rights away from suspected terrorists you MUST think that nobody in custody is "suspected" (they are all guilty and therefore they don't deserve the right of habeus corpus). Now you're ADMITTING that you support stripping INNOCENT PEOPLE of the right to habeus corpus?! YOU ARE A TERRIBLE PERSON. What other conclusion can I reach? Innocent people can be locked away forever and you don't have a problem with it? Because they aren't US citizens?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. I think you may be misinterpreting habeas corpus. The revocation of that right would not as you say "lock them away forever." It would simply mean that they didn't get to appear in their court case. This makes things a lot quicker, particularly when terrorists have no respect for US oaths and lie anyway. Or use the courtroom for the propagation of political propaganda. And so you know, a lot of innocent US citizens are locked away forever or killed each year. Yes I care much more about them because they are US citizens. I care more about my own then foreign citizens because I am American. These two things do not make me "a terrible person," they make me logical. Logic can be taken for callousness, especially when it supports a tough decision. I don't think you comprehend how little it matters to me that you think I'm a terrible person. I try to look at things logically, what is right rather than what feels right. If you take offense at that, well I'm sorry, but it's how I am.

Wrong. Hence my Roe v Wade example. A ruling which affected the laws at the time it was handed down and CONTINUES to affect laws today. If an old case has become irrelevant then it is up to those who believe so to try and have that decision overturned. Until then THE VERDICT STANDS. Your answer of "nothing" is 100 percent incorrect.

Again though, the comparison is invalid. This case affected laws, not another case. Your comparison would be logically valid only if it affected another Supreme Court case.

Bull. Are you saying that we invaded ourselves? The South broke away and formed the Confederacy -- but that seperation wasn't recognized! Seeing as the North did not recognize the Confederacy as a seperate nation they could not "invade" the North! I fail to see what your point is in any case. This is a completely irrelevant argument.

Heh, read history much? It was definitely considered an invasion by the Lincoln administration and most at that time. My point which you fail to see is that you base all your opinions on precedents. Well here we have a precedent for someone suspending Habeas Corpus. Therefore by your own philosophy we should o it again. Yet you do not think so. Is this not paradoxical?
 

I'm not reading all that. Get a life already. HA! All your arguments invalidated simply because you wrote too much! If they were at all like your previous arguments they're all stupid anyway. Another good reason for me not to read them.
 

Well of course it's too long, because eighty percent of it is qouting your long winded rants. Silly dervish, using my arguements against me only works when they apply to the situation.