One Step Closer to Tyranny

[Elok]

This is going from memory:

"Hey, who left this garbage on the steps of the capitol?"

"I'm not garbage...
I'm an amendment-to-be,
Yes, an amendment-to-be,
And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me.

'Cause there's lots of flag-burners
Who have got too much freedom
And I wanna make it legal for policemen
To beat 'em!
'Cause there's limits to our liberties--
At least I hope and pray that there are,
'Cause these liberal freaks go too far."

"Why can't we just make a law against flag-burning?"
"Because that would be unconstitutional. But if we rewrite the constitution--"
"Then we could pass all sorts of crazy laws!"
"Now you're gettin' it!"
"But what if they don't pass you?"

"Then I'll crush all opposition to me!
Ted Kennedy's got to pay.
If he fights back,
I'll say that he's gay."

"Good news, Amendment, you passed! You're in the constitution now!"

"All right! Door's open, boys!"

(army of bills whooping and carrying guns/bombs flood into the capitol)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Now that I've got that out of my system, does anyone know where I might find a non-partisan analysis of the bill? The hysterical fear mongering by che and the claims of impending apocalypse by Jon intrigue me about the contents of the bill yet seem short on any actual info about it.

Everyone from Slate on left is screaming that McCain caved and the President got we he wanted. Their incentive for spinning that way - they wanted a more civil libertarian piece of legislation, and they dont like McCain - are clear. The right, like NRO, is crowing that McCain caved - THEIR incentives, their reluctance to ever admit that Bush gave in or changed his mind, and THEIR intense dislike for McCain - are pretty clear as well. To get a POV that spins it with a focus on how different this is from what the admin wanted, you'll have to find pro-McCain POV. I dont know there really is one - Weekly Standard like McCain, but is probably more sympathetic to the admin on this one - maybe WaPo, but they probably are with the "left" on this one. You'll have to hear the thing defended from the horse mouth himself, when McCain goes on the Sunday talk shows.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It's not my job to educate you if you don't even have a grade-school level understanding of the legislative process.

Let's just say that DinoDoc is a better man than you... thank you DD, though it's the same answer OO gave and less colorful, but I get it now and my faith in our system is diminished that much more.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I've been assuming that DRose is an American... am I wrong on that?

Born and raised, and by the grace of God NOT a Texan.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Born and raised, and by the grace of God NOT a Texan.

Then I ****ing weep for the educational system of this country. For you, as an American, not to know that is worthy of mocking and derision. It's akin to saying something like "the President gets to veto Supreme Court decisions, right?"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui




Then I ****ing weep for the educational system of this country. For you, as an American, not to know that is worthy of mocking and derision. It's akin to saying something like "the President gets to veto Supreme Court decisions, right?"

its not just the educ system, IS, its the press and punditry as well. How often are SCOTUS decisions presented as if SCOTUS were simply a third branch of the legislature?

[Arrian]

That's really, really basic stuff, though.

But let's let it go. He knows now.

For the record, I do not recall a civics class being a part of my education. It was part of "social studies" I think.

-Arrian

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui




Then I ****ing weep for the educational system of this country. For you, as an American, not to know that is worthy of mocking and derision. It's akin to saying something like "the President gets to veto Supreme Court decisions, right?"

I'm not sure if you're being a dick towards me or not, but I'll half-agree with this statement. Plus, my USGov't teacher wasn't all that good at it and as added bonus my period had most of my graduating class' screwups in it. Not a fun class...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Elok
This is going from memory:

"Hey, who left this garbage on the steps of the capitol?"

"I'm not garbage...
I'm an amendment-to-be,
Yes, an amendment-to-be,
And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me.

'Cause there's lots of flag-burners
Who have got too much freedom
And I wanna make it legal for policemen
To beat 'em!
'Cause there's limits to our liberties--
At least I hope and pray that there are,
'Cause these liberal freaks go too far."

"Why can't we just make a law against flag-burning?"
"Because that would be unconstitutional. But if we rewrite the constitution--"
"Then we could pass all sorts of crazy laws!"
"Now you're gettin' it!"
"But what if they don't pass you?"

"Then I'll crush all opposition to me!
Ted Kennedy's got to pay.
If he fights back,
I'll say that he's gay."

"Good news, Amendment, you passed! You're in the constitution now!"

"All right! Door's open, boys!"

(army of bills whooping and carrying guns/bombs flood into the capitol)

I love that Simpson's episode.

[lord of the mark]

drose - congress passes bills, when they are approved by congress and signed by the Prez (or passed over his veto) they become law.

The courts decide cases under the law. When someone goes to court, one arguement they can make is that a law being applied is contrary to the constitution. THe const is the supreme law of the US, so where there is a conflict, the Const is applied. When SCOTUS decides, IN A CASE BROUGHT BEFORE IT, that a law is or is not constitutional, all other courts must follow SCOTUS (or they will be overruled - not a good thing) Sometimes there is no case brought wrt a given law - usually cause no one has any desire to make the case. Sometimes SCOTUS refuses to hear it, and lets lower court decisions on constitutionality stand - if there is conflict among lower courts, there is pressure for SCOTUS to decide, but often they want a case where the issues are more clear for a ruling with such impact.

Under the Constitution the Congress can rule on issues of jurisdiction, and in most cases on what can be appealed to SCOTUS. In some cases its been suggested that this can be used to prevent certain constitutional issues from reaching SCOTUS - IS can speak better to the success of such attempts.

I suspect that if a US citizen were detained on US soil, and was prevented by this legislation from bringing suit, some relative of said detainee would bring suit, claiming the detention caused material damage to the relative. I suspect that the courts would be eager to use that to get around the limit on going to court, especially if word were abroad in the land that this legislation was being abused.

Aside from which there is still congressional oversight.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


Let's just say that DinoDoc is a better man than you... thank you DD, though it's the same answer OO gave and less colorful, but I get it now and my faith in our system is diminished that much more.

No prob. Anytime I can break out some ole schoolhouse rock let me know.

I was just humming the preamble to constituion song a few moments ago.

Good times Good times

[DRoseDARs]

Wow, look at all the better men than Kuci! Unbelievable!



Now, if only I could get more gay men to give me this much attention...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ahhh crap. I forgot you're one of them there homosexuuallls. Frag my being nice any more.

[Victor Galis]

Did the Senate vote on it today? I see the last amendment that had a chance failed.

[Jon Miller]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/28/congress.terrorism.ap/index.html

a sad sad day for this country

JM