"You're only alive because someone has decided to let you live," and other negative affirmations.

[digitaldiscipline]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_robert_p_070119_gonzales_questions_h.htm

Money shot:

"Applying Gonzales's reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn't explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. The amendment simply bars the government, i.e. Congress, from passing laws that would impinge on these rights."

These are the elected and oppointed officials, running and ruining this country; they don't merely hold the constitution and our freedoms in contempt, they view them as something to be abridged at the merest convenience.

When, exactly, are people going to wake the fuck up?

Comments

[etcet.livejournal.com]

Holy shit; you're still alive. I thought you'd been killed in a freak reindeer accident or something.

Assuming that you're right in your interpretation - should Dubya and company try to act in a manner consistent with this tenet on someone who isn't already marginalized - do you think the Supremes would side with them, or the spirit of the law as it's understood by people who are a bit more, shall we say, sensible?

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

The Supremes would side with what we consider the spirit of the law, as existing precedent exists for it. See my comment below on caselaw.

[fenixinthedark.livejournal.com]

"Animals shall not sleep in beds... with sheets".

Orwell is spinning so fast in his grave that the earths axis is likely to shift.

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

*twitch*
Sadly, that sentence is correct. A 'strict constructionist' view of the Constitution supports that interpretation.

HOWEVER, and this a big fucking however that sits right down and shits all over that sentence, existing caselaw would provide the precedent that it's a bullshit interpretation. Even Scalia, who is the strictest interpreter of the Constitution in the Supreme Court, would look at that statement and say "Fuck you!"

This simply gives me more reason to believe that Gonzales is purely incompetent as an attorney of any stripe, given his track record.

[mighty-man.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, some of the most important case law that has ever been recorded in American history has been about things that at the time seemed would violate common sense. So what if there's existing case law? That doesn't mean that it can't be overturned.

Separate but Equal comes to mind. Discrimination based on Sex, Religion, etc also comes to mind. Slavery? Sure, let's toss that in too.

That's the problem with law being rooted in so many languages -- semantics. If you make it too specific, it's very narrow and restrictive. Make it too vague and you rope in everything -- case in point, check out what the apple wireless users are going through because of SOX.

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

Sure case law can be overturned - it's just not very likely. Case law depends on the whole of society at any particular point of time and what society think is right or wrong. We have to remember that hatred of us Papists (or lapsed ones, in my case) was at one point standard and normal within the psyche of society. Separate but equal also was as well.

Does this mean they were right? Certainly not by my standards or by the standards of today's society. By their standards at that time? Yes. It's how it came about, that and the whole "Slaves count for 1/6th of a vote." in the Constitution.

The loss of habeas corpus is something that we have not entertained as a society at any point in time. We practically founded the country on the principle. Having now read the transcript of the proceeding between Senator Arlen and Mr. Gonzales, I think the following sentence from Senator Arlen sums it up:

SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

As a note, do you have a link wherein it would explain the Apple wireless/SOX issue? I've had my own experience with SOX lately...

[mighty-man.livejournal.com]

This isn't a very good link, but gives a pretty broad idea.
http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2007/01/mac_owners_who_.html

[kendra-manycats.livejournal.com]

Some people are finally coming around. Taken fucking long enough. Otherwise we wouldn't be having a hearing at all.

[smaugchow.livejournal.com]

Hmmm...judges don't know about the best interests of the country....lemme see......nope, not even in their job description.

If I remember my Law 101 class (and I may not - smoked a lot of weed that semester) the judicial branch exists to decided questions of constitutionality, to determine of the other brranches have overstepped the line and broken the damn law. THE LAW - THE CONSTITUTION - doesn't give a wet fart about Gitmo or Afghanistan.

Like all the rest of the Bush propaganda machine, this guy is just wrangling for sound bytes and nonsensical explanations to prop up their illegal and immoral actions. It doesn't matter if we all know what's going on - we can't touch them and they know it.