So lets say my next door neighbor were to call the fbi on me... - Page 2

avsp · 09-29-2006, 12:52 PM

is it possible to take a law to the courts to determine its constituionality?
or
do you have to actually contest a case with a defendant to have a law declared unconstituional by the courts?

we've a bunch of simlar concerns here, ..., the courts have overturned stuff because it was applying differently to foreginers than to UK citizens, ..., this has resulted in de facto house arrest for various suspected jihadists proponents

the growth of a police state here in the UK is becoming very rapid, ..., i see it on the street all the time, camera, asbos, restiction area notices etc etc

blair recently suggested that the state should 'intervene' in the lives of those yet to be born because they were going to grow up to be anti-social

Scrum · 09-29-2006, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by avsp

is it possible to take a law to the courts to determine its constituionality?
or
do you have to actually contest a case with a defendant to have a law declared unconstituional by the courts?

I believe it's the second.

Phantom · 09-29-2006, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

When Padilla (an american citizen) protested that the federal agents could not just name enemy combatants at will and whisk them away, the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DENIED TO HEAR THE CASE AND UPHELD THE 4TH CIRCUIT OPINION THAT FEDERALS CAN LOCK AWAY SOMEONE FOREVER

he is presently facing civilian criminal charges.

and:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

April 3, 2006: Supreme Court rejects Padilla's appeal, although Chief Justice John Roberts and other key justices said that they would be watching to ensure Padilla receives the protections "guaranteed to all federal criminal defendants."

It took less than an hour to put you back on the IL. The ignorance of your posts is insurmountable.

Phantom · 09-29-2006, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by avsp

is it possible to take a law to the courts to determine its constituionality?
or
do you have to actually contest a case with a defendant to have a law declared unconstituional by the courts?

There are very limited cases where a court will decide the constitutionality of a law before its application. Usually the courts wait for a person with sufficient interest in the case (like someone charged with a crime) to litigate the constitutionality of the law.

Publius · 09-29-2006, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I believe it's the second.

It is. The court can't just be presented with a case that says "review this law please." There has to be an actual case regarding an individual that has been appealed up to the Court (or took place in the very narrow realms of law in which the SCOTUS has original jurisdiction).

Publius · 09-29-2006, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

There are very limited cases where a court will decide the constitutionality of a law before its application. Usually the courts wait for a person with sufficient interest in the case (like someone charged with a crime) to litigate the constitutionality of the law.

Those very limited cases are the ones where the SCOTUS has original jurisdiction.

Thorgrim · 09-29-2006, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

he is presently facing civilian criminal charges.

and:

It took less than an hour to put you back on the IL. The ignorance of your posts is insurmountable.

Good job judge...

Nice to see you can't tell the difference between legal rulings and off the cuff remarks

I am glad to see Roberts can rule that the government can detain an american citizen forever, and also (fortunately in a dissent) gave his court opinion that withholding evidence and charges is within government bounds...

Yet he claimed he'll watch over this one Padilla guy out of 300 million americans, wow i feel safer already

Thorgrim · 09-29-2006, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Those very limited cases are the ones where the SCOTUS has original jurisdiction.

im glad to see the libertarians ignoring this thread...like I've pointed out before...libertarians care more about a 1% tax raise than losing all their civil liberties

Publius · 09-29-2006, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

im glad to see the libertarians ignoring this thread...like I've pointed out before...libertarians care more about a 1% tax raise than losing all their civil liberties

What the hell are you talking about?

SICKGUY · 09-29-2006, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

What you listed would not be probable cause for either an arrest or search warrant.

Could this be done? Yes. Would it be constitutional - absolutely not, and even the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court would agree with me.

thats supposed to be how it goes. the constitution is supposed to protect us from this sort of thing, but it seems as if bush would like nothing better than to wipe it out.

JaJae · 09-29-2006, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

i dont really know the laws either. but this is supposedly what happened to that dude from canada and the ap reporter in iraq.

Maher Arar

CBC News Indepth: Maher Arar: Timeline

That is nowhere near what happened to the AP photographer in Iraq.

He was found with a group of other terrorists in Iraq in a safehouse holding ammunitions and weapons used against our troops. He had bomb making explosive residue on his hands.

And as far as I know he wasn't there taking pictures when he was picked up... Which is why he's being held.

He has close ties to terrorists and assisted them in making terror videos and posed propaganda photos.

That guy should be questioned and interrogated. It seems the only thing that makes him different from the people he was caught with was that he carries a camera and gets paid by AP to spread the images and videos the terrorists want us to see..

JaJae · 09-29-2006, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

thats supposed to be how it goes. the constitution is supposed to protect us from this sort of thing, but it seems as if bush would like nothing better than to wipe it out.

Liberals have been trashing on the constitution for decades. The Republicans are just making up for lost time...

Voting in Democrats isn't going to solve the problem. We need a new party.

kinggovernor · 09-30-2006, 01:13 AM

Scrum · 09-30-2006, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

That is nowhere near what happened to the AP photographer in Iraq.

He was found with a group of other terrorists in Iraq in a safehouse holding ammunitions and weapons used against our troops. He had bomb making explosive residue on his hands.

And as far as I know he wasn't there taking pictures when he was picked up... Which is why he's being held.

He has close ties to terrorists and assisted them in making terror videos and posed propaganda photos.

That guy should be questioned and interrogated. It seems the only thing that makes him different from the people he was caught with was that he carries a camera and gets paid by AP to spread the images and videos the terrorists want us to see..

Judge JaJae is on the case again. He bitches about Murtha saying a soldier is guilty and basically accuses the congressmen of treason for saying so, but this guy is just guilty and everyone knows it.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Liberals have been trashing on the constitution for decades. The Republicans are just making up for lost time...

My neighbor was punching his wife for years until she kicked him out. I bet it would be ok if I went over there and strangled her.

JaJae · 09-30-2006, 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Judge JaJae is on the case again. He bitches about Murtha saying a soldier is guilty and basically accuses the congressmen of treason for saying so, but this guy is just guilty and everyone knows it.

No Murtha said these soldiers are guilty of a crime.

I said how he was picked up and that he should be interrogated and treated no different than the people he was caught with. Calling me and anyone else Judge whatever is getting very old considering the source.

SICKGUY · 09-30-2006, 01:26 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Liberals have been trashing on the constitution for decades. The Republicans are just making up for lost time...

Voting in Democrats isn't going to solve the problem. We need a new party.

examples of the dems trashing your rights and the constitution would be nice.

no 3rd party is going to gain any ground in the near future, so what should we do?

i dont even think you conservative guys really know what liberals stand for. i was reading this article, and some senator said the dems want to "coddle" the terrorists. come on, are republicans really that ignorant? do you guys really believe that we would just pardon anyone threatening america? do republicans really believe the dems and liberals would bring in a terrorist, give them a big screen tv, beer, some hookers, and a pat on the back? give me a break!

conservatives are the real suckers. it doesnt matter if everything the president says is a lie. despite ridiculous amounts of evidence showing that he has repeatedly lied to his country, taken us to war, wasted BILLIONS of our tax dollars fighting the war, as well as slowly stripping away our rights and picking apart the constitution in the name of security, and trashing our image as a respectable country to the rest of the world (except poland) yet, here you are, still defending him and his policies like he saved your life or something. im suprised some of the republican senators have never been on camera with some shit on their nose.

has g.w. bush actually accomplished anything positive during his presidency?? if you say iraq, give reasons on how its helped us. if you say tax cuts, give reasons on how they have helped the country. if you say the economy is strong, you are full of shit.

how can you even be proud to be an american, while at the same time defend an administration that has no desire to uphold anything americans hold sacred? is it really worth giving up your rights one by one, and fighting a war to stay safe from a terrorist attack thats never going to affect 98.99999% of americans?

JaJae · 09-30-2006, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

examples of the dems trashing your rights and the constitution would be nice.

Roe v Wade
Gun Control

no 3rd party is going to gain any ground in the near future, so what should we do?

i dont even think you conservative guys really know what liberals stand for. i was reading this article, and some senator said the dems want to "coddle" the terrorists. come on, are republicans really that ignorant? do you guys really believe that we would just pardon anyone threatening america? do republicans really believe the dems and liberals would bring in a terrorist, give them a big screen tv, beer, some hookers, and a pat on the back? give me a break!

Nah, that's only how they want to treat American criminals...

conservatives are the real suckers. it doesnt matter if everything the president says is a lie. despite ridiculous amounts of evidence showing that he has repeatedly lied to his country, taken us to war, wasted BILLIONS of our tax dollars fighting the war, as well as slowly stripping away our rights and picking apart the constitution in the name of security, and trashing our image as a respectable country to the rest of the world (except poland) yet, here you are, still defending him and his policies like he saved your life or something. im suprised some of the republican senators have never been on camera with some shit on their nose.

What policy have I defended here?

has g.w. bush actually accomplished anything positive during his presidency?? if you say iraq, give reasons on how its helped us. if you say tax cuts, give reasons on how they have helped the country. if you say the economy is strong, you are full of shit.

Anything positive? I got a tax break, I'm kinda happy about that. Oh and the whole economy thing. I was able to buy a car for after 9/11 and the tech bubble burst. Oh and my pell grant increased about $500. That was kinda cool. I enjoyed that...

how can you even be proud to be an american, while at the same time defend an administration that has no desire to uphold anything americans hold sacred? is it really worth giving up your rights one by one, and fighting a war to stay safe from a terrorist attack thats never going to affect 98.99999% of americans?

I don't think I defend the administration so much as I play devil's advocate. I'm not a fan of Bush. But both parties do trash on our rights. That's a given. And the AP photographer story is fairly well documented by now... I'm not sure what your statistic means, but it sure sounded good.

Thorgrim · 09-30-2006, 02:08 AM

roe v wade was decided by judges, many of them appointed by republicans

democrats have abandoned advancing gun control laws as a party, and republicans have not rolled back any previous gun control laws

*yawn* next?

JaJae · 09-30-2006, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

roe v wade was decided by judges, many of them activist liberals

Fixed.

democrats have abandoned advancing gun control laws as a party, and republicans have not rolled back any previous gun control laws

*yawn* next?

Yawn.. read my post.. *YAWN*

Please refer to the words in my post when responding to me. It helps keep the discussion logical and not in a make believe world. Thanks.