No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Now, I understand that this is no bill of attainder, but is it an ex post facto law?

Bush, stop making us less safe!

You need to understand that most Americans, the average American, are not that bright and rarely knows what to think in a rational fashion. Most Americans are emotional critters who are followers, not people who could take the lead if necessary.

There is no outage because Americans cannot perceive what is going on around them. They can’t connect the dots, so to speak.

Doesn’t say much for America.

(clip)
Second, Congress (or the President) may not Restrict the Supreme Court’s original Habeas Corpus jurisdiction which is a creation of the constitution — that is what the suspension clause has been read to mean.

FindLaw: US Constitution

“In form, of course, clause 2 is a limitation of power, not a grant of power, and is in addition placed in a section of limitations. It might be argued, therefore, that the power to suspend lies elsewhere and that this clause limits that authority. This argument is opposed by the little authority there is on the subject. 3 M. Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven: 1937), 213 (Luther Martin); Ex parte Merryman, 17 Fed. Cas. 144, 148 (No. 9487), (C.C.D. Md. 1861); but cf. 3 J. Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington: 2d ed. 1836), 464 (Edmund Randolph). At the Convention, Gouverneur Morris proposed the language of the present clause: the first section of the clause, down to ”unless” was adopted unanimously, but the second part, qualifying the prohibition on suspension was adopted over the opposition of three States. 2 M. Farrand, op. cit., 438. It would hardly have been meaningful for those States opposing any power to suspend to vote against this language if the power to suspend were conferred elsewhere.”

I am confused. Are you saying the same thing? Where is the power to suspend?

I,too, am flabbergasted that there’s not more outcry, but then again, not all that surprised.

The most common response I get from people who aren’t following, aren’t paying strict attention (what, do you think, about 90%?) is Oh, yeah, isn’t that terrible. But didn’t someone introduce an amendment to stop it?

It’s enough to make a grown woman take to her bed with the vapors.

And those are just the Dems. The other common response is Oh. I suppose you want the terr’ists to kill you in your sleep? You are as big a problem as the terr’ists – you support them!

RMD1035 — I call bullshit. And that sort of short-sighted Eeyore crap is what hands Karl Rove election victories. So you’ll pardon me if I don’t buy into a bunch of defeatist crap today or any day, thanks.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

-Edmund Burke

Dear Christy:

Far be it for me to get into a “pissing” contest with you, that was only my 3rd post on this site. Trust me that was far from my intention, and certainly your vehement challenge to my assertion is praise worthy, however perhaps I should explain my rational for my previous post.

This “law” that is being debated challenges the very underpinnings of our concepts of justice in every respect. It codifies torture, indefinite detention, and most tellingly, pardons for those who are supposedly in our employ for war crimes, and by any definition crimes against humanity.

While I certainly understand that this was a Republican law, proposed by this administration, I find it telling that in the House vote today, 34 Democrats voted in favor this heinous law, one of which unfortunately (Rep. Ford from TN I believe) is in a close race for the US Senate. While I understand how it might be “politically” expedient to vote in favor of this bill, the underlying fact is they will be condoning evil.

While fully cognizant of the fact that we have NO HOPE with a Republican Congress, I wonder if the Democratic Party took over one or both Houses of Congress, how many of them will be willing to go to the “mat” with the Bush/Cheney administration. If 34 of the “good” guys are willing to sell their souls for their current jobs (or future jobs) for the sake of political expediency, one has to wonder where they will ever draw the line.

Am I a defeatist? No, I prefer to think of myself as a idealist. WTF do we stand for, not as a party, but as a people. I am astonished how little outcry as a whole this entire process has generated. I spent 3 yrs of my life as a military policeman in the US Army, and the last 20 working in law enforcement, and here before my very eyes, the elected leaders of my country are actually legalizing evil acts. I am truly speechless.

Again I did not mean for you to take offense.

RMD1035