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

[John W.]

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 11:53 AM, LAURIE <LAURIE at advancenet.net> wrote:

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).


Yes.  Marbury v. Madison.  :-)



> 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.


Correct as usual, Laurie.  I think Carl may have been being (awkward
phrase!) just a bit facetious.  Scalia is a "strict constructionist"
according to HIS interpretation of the "intent of the Founders".  What a
dumbass!  (Lest there by any confusion, I'm referring to Scalia.)

John



> > -----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?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080701/b01d78d9/attachment.htm