[Peace-discuss] DN!: Hersh: Congress Agreed to Bush Request...

[LAURIE]

Except when it doesn't.  If it were as obviously literal and timeless in its
meanings and references as this suggests, we would not need courts or
lawyers to interpret the constitution or the laws implemented under it as it
gets applied to individual concrete cases in "real" time.   The right to
bear arms would apply to all types of arms from old ball and powder pistols
to laser and rockets; I also do not recall any clauses in the Constitution
that explicitly says that the principle of judicial review exists (if I am
not mistaken that was the result of a Supreme Court ruling and not a
constitutional provision). Moreover, the Constitution does not literally or
explicitly prohibit yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or transporting sick
chickens across State lines.  In fact in the former instance, the
Constitution can arguable be said to literally and allow one to yell "fire"
or anything else that one wants at any time in any place under the literal
and explicit wording of the "freedom of speech" amendment provisions.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-
> bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:53 AM
> To: jencart13 at yahoo.com
> Cc: Peace-discuss List
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] DN!: Hersh: Congress Agreed to Bush
> Request...
> 
> As Justice Scalia (sometimes) insists, the Constitution means what it
> says.
> 
> 
> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> > When the story broke (w/in the last year or so) Durbin claimed it
> would
> > have been illegal for him to reveal that the evidence was bogus. And
> > today on DN!, there was another reference to the illegality of those
> > eight congresspersons' exposing the particulars of the covert
> operations
> > against Iran. (I didn't buy it w/ Durbin, nor do I w/ Pelosi, Reid et
> > al, but there does seem to be a loophole that needs closing). Those
> > involved w/ publishing the Pentagon Papers were taking a huge
> personal
> > and professional risk, but they were willing to risk everything for
> > their principles. Not so this lot, sad to say.
> >  --Jenifer
> >
> >
> > --- On *Mon, 6/30/08, C. G. Estabrook /<galliher at uiuc.edu>/* wrote:
> >
> >     From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> >     Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] DN!: Hersh: Congress Agreed to Bush
> >     Request...
> >     To: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
> >     Cc: "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> >     Date: Monday, June 30, 2008, 10:37 PM
> >
> >     Yes.  That's how Daniel Ellsberg wanted to reveal the classified
> Pentagon
> >     Papers.  Senator Mike Gravel eventually did it.
> >
> >     "On June 29, 1971, U.S. Senator Mike Gravel (Democrat, Alaska)
> entered
> >     4,100
> >     pages of the Papers to the record of his Subcommittee on Public
> Buildings and
> >     Grounds. These portions of the Papers were subsequently published
> by Beacon
> >     Press... The importance of recording the Papers to the
> Congressional Record was
> >
> >     that, Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution
> provides that
> >     "for
> >     any Speech or Debate in either House, [a Senator or
> Representative] shall not
> >     be
> >     questioned in any other Place", thus the Senator could not be
> prosecuted
> >     for
> >     anything said on the Senate floor, and, by extension, for
> anything entered to
> >     the Congressional Record, allowing the Papers to be publicly read
> without
> >     threat
> >     of a treason trial and conviction.
> >
> >     "Later, Ellsberg said the documents 'demonstrated
> unconstitutional
> >     behavior by a
> >     succession of presidents, the violation of their oath and the
> violation of the
> >     oath of every one of their subordinates', and that he had leaked
> the papers
> >     in
> >     the hopes of getting the nation out of 'a wrongful war.'"
> >
> >     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
> >
> >
> >     John W. wrote:
> >     >
> >     > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:56 PM, C. G. Estabrook
> <galliher at uiuc.edu
> >     > <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     In fact it would have been perfectly legal for members of
> Congress
> >     >     "to squeal about those secret operations [or] for Durbin et
> al.
> >     to
> >     >     divulge that they knew the 'evidence' given for
> justification
> >     for
> >     >     attacking Iraq was bogus" on the floor of the House or
> Senate.
> >     The
> >     >     Constitution specifically says of members of Congress in
> the
> >     "Speech
> >     >     or Debate Clause" (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1) that
> "for
> >     any
> >     >     Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be
> questioned in
> >     >     any other Place." --CGE
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > I don't understand.  Our legislators can talk about classified
> matters
> >
> >     > of national security on  the floor of the House or Senate?
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Peace-discuss mailing list
> >     Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> >     http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss