[Peace-discuss] DN!: Hersh: Congress Agreed to Bush Request...
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Tue Jul 1 23:14:37 CDT 2008
The point is that the members of Congress in question (Durbin et al.) would be
protected by the Speech and Debate Clause if they chose to reveal vital
information on these matters, and they know it. The point was even tested in the
courts in the Pentagon Papers matter -- see the Supreme Court's decision in
Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972). --CGE
John W. wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 11:53 AM, LAURIE <LAURIE at advancenet.net
> <mailto: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>
> [mailto:peace-discuss- <mailto:peace-discuss->
>
> > bounces at lists.chambana.net <mailto:bounces at lists.chambana.net>]
> On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:53 AM
> > To: jencart13 at yahoo.com <mailto: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
> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>>/* wrote:
> > >
> > > From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu
> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>>
> > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] DN!: Hersh: Congress Agreed to
> Bush
> > > Request...
> > > To: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com
> <mailto:jbw292002 at gmail.com>>
> > > Cc: "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> <mailto: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>
> > > > <mailto: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?
>
>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list