Comments on: Rule of law vs. rule of flaw

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:14:08 +0000

The only problem with your logic is that there has been no declaration of war since 1941. This is a war outside of the authorization required by the constitution. So your argument does not apply to this illegal action.

By: Eugene Costa

Eugene Costa — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:10:13 +0000

Krushchev himself supposedly later expanded–”I did not mean with a shovel”, which seems consonant with with what your Russian-speaking friend says.

Indeed, “We will bury you”, even in English doesn’t necessarily mean with a shovel, does it?

All of which reminds of Saddam Hussein’s “Mother of Battles” in regard to the First Gulf War, which the Americans, apparently under the influence of their own current slang, took to mean some huge and monumental battle.

The gist in Arabic was rather genetic, one supposes, to wit: “A battle which will give birth to many battles.”

In that sense, it is also prophetic.

By: Eugene Costa

Eugene Costa — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:22:07 +0000

…en strateuetai epi Persas, megalen archen min katalusein

By: A. G. Phillbin

A. G. Phillbin — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:20:06 +0000

Funny thing about Kruschev’s “we will bury you” remark: it doesn’t mean what dumbass, easily frightened Americans thought it meant. They took it to mean something like “we will destroy you,” when, according to a friend of mine who knows Russian, it should be glossed more like, “we will be the pallbearers at your funeral.” Shades of “Israel will be wiped off the map” and Ahmedinajed, no?

By: anti-neocon

anti-neocon — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 06:29:20 +0000

Justasking is just kidding, right!

By: JustAsking

JustAsking — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 02:34:05 +0000

We’re too politically correct to admit that we should be fighting Israel and her operatives in the U.S., starting with the entire “U.S.” Congress.

Gitmo is too small to fit all of them, we’d have to reserve a state to put all of them in. Florida, California or New York? Or should we just ship all of them, including the “Rapture Christians” to Israel, give anyone sane 30 days to get out, then nuke the whole place?

That’ll solve about 50% of the world’s current problems, and about 70% that have to do with war.

By: Eugene Costa

Eugene Costa — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:59:42 +0000

Another puzzle.

Say, just for example, Senator Graham, by virtue of being two thirds of the Congress or a Constitutional Convention, proposes various Constitutional Amendments, and then, in his capacity as the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, ratifies such Amendments.

Okay–here’s the puzzle: if Senator Graham amends the Constitution to allow ex post facto law, would the amendment apply ex post facto ad initium or only to law made after the nullification of the prohibition against ex post facto law?

By: Eugene Costa

Eugene Costa — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:21:26 +0000

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…

Hear the one about the seamstress who voted for Dr. Paul because she couldn’t amend straight?

By: Lear k

Lear k — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:26:37 +0000

The majority(99%) were not picked in battle but far from any!The majority had nothing to do with any terrorism.The horror stories about how people were kiddnapped and handed over to the US which paid a lot of money for them.

By: Tim R.

Tim R. — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:34:28 +0000

Two Points: First, a legal one. The first three words of the Constitution of the United States are “We the People.” America is a representitive democracy, and ultimatly it is the American people, not unelected judges, that are sovereign. Any part of the Constitution can be amended, including the provision on ex post facto laws so if Senator Graham mentioned something like that, from a legal standpoint he is absolutly correct.

Second point: I think the people at Gitmo should be treated like Prisoners of War and protected by the Geneva conventions. This is a war after all and they were picked up in battle. The problem and real difficulty is this: It is a new kind of war. When is it over? Normally, when a war is over the POW’s are given back to the country from where they came. But in this case, the IslamoTerrorists don’t plan on accepting defeat any time soon, (hell we are too politically correct to even admit who we are fighting) so it is a very difficult question as to what to do with them. I don’t have an answer or solution exce[t to say that I do think they ought to be treated as POW’s and have all the rights POW’s normally get under the Geneava Conventions.