Like Kryptonite To Stupid
» Breaking News
RNC Spent Almost $30,000 More In Clothes For Palin
Mumbai Terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasab Promised $1,250 For Attack
Economy Kills Broadway’s Latest Version Of “Grease”
Katie Price: Dwight Yorke Ignores Disabled Son Harvey
Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe Writing Book
The Supreme Court decision that ruled against the Bush administration’s plan to try suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay prison has “hampered our ability” to deal with terrorists, the U.S. attorney general said Saturday.
Constitution: Tough titties.
Oliver Willis
owillis@gmail.com
AIM: oliverwill
OW @ MySpace
OW @ Facebook
OW @ Flickr
OW @ XBox Live
OW @ Twitter
It has hampered the Consigliere’s efforts to deal with citizens too, for which I think our founders profusely.
Al Gore, upon losing a case in the Supreme Court: “Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court’s decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome…. And tonight, for the sake of our unity of the people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.”
George Bush, upon losing a case in the Supreme Court: “To the extent there is latitude to work with the Congress to determine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue in which to give people their day in court, we will do so.” Said he would consider working with Congress on legislation that would authorize the tribunals.
You do know we signed the Geneva Conventions, right? You do know your whole argument is moot because - repeat - the Supreme Court has made their decision.
Interesting, no?
Well, please explain it to me then. What is interesting and relevant to this post of the Eleventh Amendment?
GOP sees hope after Gitmo ruling…
Republicans on Friday looked to wrest a political victory from a legal defeat in the Supreme Court, …
And tonight, for the sake of our unity of the people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession
So when will there be the Ceremonial Destruction of Tinfoil Hats?
Interestingly, the President is considering a Supreme Court decision (which, of course, he has every right to do), as a result of a terrorists’ lawsuit (!), while the left has been whining about a decision that goes back 5 years, brought about by their champion’s initial failure to concede.
There’s a parallel there, I guess…
I followed the links, and uncovered some interesting editing:
Interesting, no?
Tough titties, indeed
cypher: I assume if you can type, you can read.
But I’ll make it easy for you. Since the bolding wasn’t enough, I’ll leave out everything but the bolding:
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit … by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
Is that better?
Your whole argument is moot because - repeat - the Supreme Court has made their decision.
Funny, just above you say, “It is a co-equal branch of the government”.
Now, suddenly the Supreme Court is the end of the line?
Which is it?
Congress can pass new legislation, or the President can issue an Executive Order, and turn that decision into toilet paper overnight. This way the prisoners at Gitmo will have something else besides there Korans to throw in the toilets.
The president cannot issue an executive order that is illegal. What the court ruled is that if Bush wants to do all his fun stuff in Gitmo, he has to have it pass through Congress. This is social studies 101 - the congress passes the laws, the president executes them. You don’t get to bypass that unless you’re in war.
And we have not declared war.
Wait and see, Oliver. As someone commented elsewhere, “All the Supreme Court said was, “Go back and get it right.”
And that’s just exactly what happened to dear leader’s policy, down the toilet, which had no legal background, other than in thier own narrow minds. After over four years, one would think that the AG or someone in this adminstration would provide advice other than what they apparently wanted to hear. That is if he would listen.
And,since you brought the subject up, I will only say the following. To paraphrase William Safire, not exactly a flaming liberal, it interesting to see the very institution which put him in office over 5 years ago now “pulling in the reigns”. One which he and the republican congress still have visions of packing with members of the neocon nation.
…against one of the United States…
Frank you’re an idiot, the Eleventh Amendment is construed to mean that the Federal Courts can’t hear suits against a State.
Hold it! Hold it!
The word “States” is in there?
Why, that explains everything!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Try using google dickweed. But then we know that you actually did google it and are afraid to point out the obvious, that your head is firmly up your ass.
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia
Amendment XI (the Eleventh Amendment) of the United States Constitution was passed by the U.S. Congress on March 4, 1794 and was ratified on February 7, 1795.
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
The amendment was passed after the Supreme Court’s 1792 ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), that federal courts had the authority to hear cases in law and equity against states by private citizens, and that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits made by citizens of other states.
Although the amendment’s text does not by its own terms include suits brought by a citizen against his own state, the Supreme Court has consistently held (e.g., in Hans v. Louisiana 134 U.S. 1 (1890)) that a broader principle of state sovereign immunity inheres in the Eleventh Amendment. The dissenting view, which has never garnered more than four justices’ support, is that the states surrendered their sovereign immunity when they ratified the Constitution (and certainly when they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment), and that the Eleventh Amendment should therefore be read narrowly as a constitutional limitation on the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts.
The Eleventh Amendment confers on non-consenting states immunity from suit for money damages or other equitable relief. Nonetheless, federal courts may enjoin the enforcement of unconstitutional state statutes under Ex parte Young. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that Congress may abrogate state immunity from suit, if this is done pursuant to a valid exercise of its constitutional powers. See, e.g., Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976). The Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress such power, but not Article I. See Congressional power of enforcement.
If you check the other post. dimwit, you’ll find that I used the Thompson Gale Law Encyclopedia not The World Book Encylopedia for Children on the Internet WikiPedia, you jerk.
Frank_D:
Amendment XI
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
As it said, the 11th Amendment merely disallows a suit against “one of the United States” by someone who does not live in that particular state. That includes someone who is not a US citizen. This was not against “one of the United States.” This was against Rumsfeld. Thus, the 11th Amendment does not enter the equation.