Comments on: Does McCain Support Amending The Constitution To Overturn The Supreme Court’s Habeas Decision?

By: wizard2000

wizard2000 — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:49:10 +0000

Since a constitutional amendment requires ratification by the states, I really doubt that we’ll see a constitutional amendment destroying habeas corpus anytime soon, if ever.

Remember, all fifty state governors, both Republicans and Democrats, sent a protest letter to the Bush administration and the Repubican-controlled Congress expressing their outrage over BushCo demanding the right to federalize the national guard units of all states in cases of emergency, as declared and defined by El Presidente Bush. BushCo and the Republican-controlled Congress didn’t listen, of course, and now Bush can arbitrarily declare an emergency and seize control of a state’s national guard units over the objections of that state’s governor. (This was done in response to Gov. Blanco of Louisiana refusing to give into BushCo demands during Hurricane Katrina that she turn control of her state’s national guard units over to them. Which I believe was actually an attempt by BushCo to bypass Louisiana’s national guard units, forcing them to stand down, so as to give some work to Blackwater. Privatize. Privatize. Privatize. Remember?).

By: shoeless

shoeless — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:59:38 +0000

Uh, Dallas, I think McCain is running on that one.

By: DallasNE

DallasNE — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:50:55 +0000

A bill passed by Congress and signed by a President cannot negate either the Constitution or a signed Treaty such as the Geneva Conventions. That means the only route available is a Constituional Amendment that would go against 500 years of International law. Let McCain run on that one.

By: TAGG

TAGG — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:51:17 +0000

The battle we must win if America is to survive as a nation of laws not men. http://www.tagg-theangrygayguy.com

By: texasbob

texasbob — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:23:58 +0000

More than wondering whether McCain would support an amendment is the question “Just what would the amendment say?” In other words, precisely how would he (or his Palmetto buddy) limit our rights? What “collateral damage” would there be? Put the son of a bugger squarely on the spot…..

By: Wayne A. Schneider

Wayne A. Schneider — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:44:22 +0000

The three senators rejected Obama’s attempts to link their positions on Guantanamo to Bush. They said their support for a 2006 law setting up the special military system on Guantanamo was an attempt to “find the right balance” between Bush’s security-first policy and the rule of law.

Translation: Bush’s security-first policy is not within the rule of law. Why does there need to be a “balance” found between them? You don’t “balance” right and wrong.

By: had enough

had enough — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:34:51 +0000

Why is it this criminal thug administration is allowed to hide behind the skirt of Pelosi and other traitor democrats?
Money?
blackmail?
payoffs?
special interest?

Get rid of Pelosi? From what I have heard on SF KGO radio, but can not find this data, 80% in her district of SF are in favor of her.

We have the most unpopular and criminal administration in history and yet the Dems that were going to drain the swamp DO NOTHING.

By: Bilbo Hussein Baggins

Bilbo Hussein Baggins — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:34:37 +0000

upside99 Says:
I find it strange when they accuse the 5 judges of being ACTIVIST when they are just following the Rule of Law.
I thought you were an Activist judge, when you DIDN’t follow the Rule of Law.

You are an “activist” judge if you rule in a way that the neoCONs think is wrong. The true “activist” judges on the SCOTUS are the judges who rule based on their religious beliefs and we all know who they are.

By: Cal Malenky

Cal Malenky — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:31:30 +0000

Rog- while we’re on the subject of sensationalism, what about Newt, Nino and the other GOP windbag fearmongers who say allowing GitMo prisoners to have actual trials in court will cause us to “lose a city”?
Move along people. No sensationalism here.
Look over there at that shiny object.

By: Cal Malenky

Cal Malenky — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:24:40 +0000

No, John, the worst decision the Supremes ever made was giving W the Presidency.

By: Xisithrus

Xisithrus — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:15:34 +0000

The enemy hates our freedoms, yet here we have men who want to remove our freedoms, do they also hate our freedoms?

By: Leftside Annie

Leftside Annie — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:09:42 +0000

Crap, McLoser – why don’t you and Senator Liberace take up shuffleboard, eh, and quit flucking around with our Constitution…?

By: Xisithrus

Xisithrus — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:09:03 +0000

Roger doesnt know what hes for,or against he just parrots whatever the talking point du jour is. Shameless serf.

By: Leftside Annie

Leftside Annie — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:07:06 +0000

Awwww, Rogerse, you’re such a *cute* little doggie!!!

Hey!! No chewing the slippers, boy!

BAD DOG!! BAD!!

By: ralph the wonder llama

ralph the wonder llama — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:56:28 +0000

shoeless Says:
rogerse Says:

national security courts,

Uh, roger, we already have federal courts. Why are you for bigger government?

shoeless, my guess is because this government won’t do what he wants.

By: tomazulob

tomazulob — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:55:37 +0000

Oh, please, please, pretty please, let McCain put forth a Constitutional amendment calling for the removal of habeas corpus. This will serve to reteach to those who don’t remember (or never knew) what habeas corpus is. Then, I’ll sit by (after my loud protestations in the streets where I live) and watch the reactions of those who suddenly realize that McCain is not just your ordinary fascist, but one of monumental proportion.

By: shoeless

shoeless — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:49:34 +0000

rogerse Says:

national security courts,

Uh, roger, we already have federal courts. Why are you for bigger government?

By: Bonnie

Bonnie — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:41:34 +0000

Getting a Constitutional amendment ratified is an extremely difficult process. Remember the ERA? Also, this idea that the decision hurts Americans and those serving in the military is so wrong. The Geneva Conventions serve to keep all parties from torture because it is inhumane. With Bush and his gang of thieves torturing our enemies, the possibility where any U.S. military taken hostage will definitely be tortured is now a probability and most likely will happen. The fact that the U.S. didn’t torture did keep U.S. prisoners from being tortured in many instances–not in all; but, most. Now, that assurance is gone.

By: AngryOne

AngryOne — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:40:46 +0000

In the mean time, McCain and friends will just regurgitate the “worse than Dred Scott” and “30 recidivist detainees” talking points.

By: RUCerious

RUCerious — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:36:34 +0000

And after the founding father zombies stomp the crap out of McIIIrd and Lindseed, I’m sending them after Rogersyntaxedjumekated