[OT] A More Reasonable Interpretation of POTUS vs. SCOTUS

[Stop SPAM]

ArtKramr wrote:
> In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his
trashing of the
> Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery
slope he so
> well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of him
>
> Arthur Kramer

Art -

You should know better than to accept this silly partisian
interpretation of what happened.

Our Founding Fathers deliberately designed the US Government to have
three independent branches as a check and balance. The three brances are
supposed to be in conflict with each other; the US has a long and
productive history of such conflicts, starting with Andrew Jackson & the
Supreme Court.

This is no different.

There is no "slippery slope" issue here. There are just the three
branches doing their usual power plays back and forth.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:38:37 -0500, Stop SPAM >
wrote:

>ArtKramr wrote:
> > In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his
>trashing of the
> > Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery
>slope he so
> > well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of him
> >
> > Arthur Kramer
>
>Art -
>
>You should know better than to accept this silly partisian
>interpretation of what happened.
>
>Our Founding Fathers deliberately designed the US Government to have
>three independent branches as a check and balance. The three brances are
>supposed to be in conflict with each other; the US has a long and
>productive history of such conflicts, starting with Andrew Jackson & the
>Supreme Court.
>
>This is no different.
>
>There is no "slippery slope" issue here. There are just the three
>branches doing their usual power plays back and forth.

Actually, the Wall Street Journal had a great editorial about the
decision and its implications on Tuesday. Headline readers tend to
miss a lot. But, then again they aren't disturbed in their ideology.

Only read this if you are willing to read this:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005283


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Stop SPAM]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:38:37 -0500, Stop SPAM >
> wrote:
>>ArtKramr wrote:
>>>In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his trashing of the
>>>Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery slope he so
>>>well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of him
>>>Arthur Kramer
>>Art -
>>
>>You should know better than to accept this silly partisian
>>interpretation of what happened.
>>
>>Our Founding Fathers deliberately designed the US Government to have
>>three independent branches as a check and balance. The three brances are
>>supposed to be in conflict with each other; the US has a long and
>>productive history of such conflicts, starting with Andrew Jackson & the
>>Supreme Court.
>>
>>This is no different.
>>
>>There is no "slippery slope" issue here. There are just the three
>>branches doing their usual power plays back and forth.
>
> Actually, the Wall Street Journal had a great editorial about the
> decision and its implications on Tuesday. Headline readers tend to
> miss a lot. But, then again they aren't disturbed in their ideology.
>
> Only read this if you are willing to read this:
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005283
>
>
> Ed Rasimus

Ed -

Thanks for the link.

I think it's a great editorial and, IMHO, just reinforces my point - the
decisions, and the issues from whence they arise, are just business as
usual between the three branches, not some great US-threatening plot by
the executive branch.

[jim]

"Stop SPAM" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
> > On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:38:37 -0500, Stop SPAM >
> > wrote:
> >>ArtKramr wrote:
> >>>In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his
trashing of the
> >>>Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery slope
he so
> >>>well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of
him
> >>>Arthur Kramer
> >>Art -
> >>
> >>You should know better than to accept this silly partisian
> >>interpretation of what happened.
> >>
> >>Our Founding Fathers deliberately designed the US Government to have
> >>three independent branches as a check and balance. The three brances are
> >>supposed to be in conflict with each other; the US has a long and
> >>productive history of such conflicts, starting with Andrew Jackson & the
> >>Supreme Court.
> >>
> >>This is no different.
> >>
> >>There is no "slippery slope" issue here. There are just the three
> >>branches doing their usual power plays back and forth.
> >
> > Actually, the Wall Street Journal had a great editorial about the
> > decision and its implications on Tuesday. Headline readers tend to
> > miss a lot. But, then again they aren't disturbed in their ideology.
> >
> > Only read this if you are willing to read this:
> > http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005283
> >
> >
> > Ed Rasimus
>
> Ed -
>
> Thanks for the link.
>
> I think it's a great editorial and, IMHO, just reinforces my point - the
> decisions, and the issues from whence they arise, are just business as
> usual between the three branches, not some great US-threatening plot by
> the executive branch.


I seem to recall Abraham Lincoln (arguably one of our best presidents if not
the best) also had a run in with the USSC over habis Corpus...
I have not ever witnessed any serious historical fallout concerning his
legacy...

Jim

[WalterM140]

>I seem to recall Abraham Lincoln (arguably one of our best presidents if not
>the best) also had a run in with the USSC over habis Corpus...
>I have not ever witnessed any serious historical fallout concerning his
>legacy...

This was quite a contentious issue in Lincoln's time.

The prevailing opinion is that the executive may suspend the Writ of Habeas
Corpus. The "executive" doesn't even have to be president. Andrew Jackson
suspended the Writ at New Orleans in 1814. Of course with no easy access to
Washington and the British literally at the gates, he had to act.

Lincoln did suspend the Writ. He was never challenged by the Supreme Court. The
Chief Justice did write an Ex Parte decision in his role as circuit judge
excoriating the president, but the matter of whether the president may suspend
the writ has not been authoritatively answered even now.

The Chief Justice, Taney, had said he favored a dissolution of the Union if it
meant that slavery was threatened, so he was not very objective. This was the
same Taney that ruled in the "Dred Scott" ruling that blacks had no rights that
whites were obligated to acknowledge, despite the fact that blacks could vote
in 5 states.

The question is why Bush has not just suspended the Writ, instead of suggesting
he is above the law, which is the clear implication of the actions he's taken
so far.

Walt

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: [OT] A More Reasonable Interpretation of POTUS vs. SCOTUS
>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 7/4/2004 3:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>I seem to recall Abraham Lincoln (arguably one of our best presidents if not
>>the best) also had a run in with the USSC over habis Corpus...
>>I have not ever witnessed any serious historical fallout concerning his
>>legacy...
>
>This was quite a contentious issue in Lincoln's time.
>
>The prevailing opinion is that the executive may suspend the Writ of Habeas
>Corpus. The "executive" doesn't even have to be president. Andrew Jackson
>suspended the Writ at New Orleans in 1814. Of course with no easy access to
>Washington and the British literally at the gates, he had to act.
>
>Lincoln did suspend the Writ. He was never challenged by the Supreme Court.
>The
>Chief Justice did write an Ex Parte decision in his role as circuit judge
>excoriating the president, but the matter of whether the president may
>suspend
>the writ has not been authoritatively answered even now.
>
>The Chief Justice, Taney, had said he favored a dissolution of the Union if
>it
>meant that slavery was threatened, so he was not very objective. This was the
>same Taney that ruled in the "Dred Scott" ruling that blacks had no rights
>that
>whites were obligated to acknowledge, despite the fact that blacks could vote
>in 5 states.
>
>The question is why Bush has not just suspended the Writ, instead of
>suggesting
> he is above the law, which is the clear implication of the actions he's
>taken
>so far.
>
>Walt
>


It was in Milligan Vs.US that Taney angered Lincoln by overturning Milligan's
death sentence And as a result we have Guantanamo today.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer