Kinda funny after the way they went after Slick Willie and Daschle.
[right][snapback]76839[/snapback][/right]

Who ran on morals? Who ran on values? Doesn't that mean a thing?
[right][snapback]76857[/snapback][/right]

Nope, 'cause we all knew them was just code words for fag-hating.
[right][snapback]76858[/snapback][/right]

Kinda funy the way Daschle's constituents saw the light and voted his ass out.
[right][snapback]76850[/snapback][/right]

It was a landslide victory by Thune.
[right][snapback]76892[/snapback][/right]

I predict they won't get DeLay out at the ballot box.
[right][snapback]76904[/snapback][/right]

No better way than that one. I wish Gingrich et al had followed that route in the past when it came to Dem House leaders.
[right][snapback]76911[/snapback][/right]

No better way than that one. I wish Gingrich et al had followed that route in the past when it came to Dem House leaders.
[right][snapback]76911[/snapback][/right]

Yeah, Gigrich and that other guy should have never wimped out.
[right][snapback]76916[/snapback][/right]

That, too, I guess. In all candor, I think it is their own party that finally "pushes them off the cliff". I doubt that, especially in the House, most would be voted out of office, sans re-drawing of districts. Bob Dornan, for example, arguably a certifiable cook was only voted out after re-districting and perhaps some shenanigans.
[right][snapback]76954[/snapback][/right]

And, to be perfectly honest again, the choice to go after Daschle, specifically, was masterful and, in Machiavellian retrospect, a 'no-brainer'.
[right][snapback]76959[/snapback][/right]

Nope, 'cause we all knew them was just code words for fag-hating.
[right][snapback]76858[/snapback][/right]

TRUE WORDS !
[right][snapback]76966[/snapback][/right]

IMO Daschle was/is corporate suck-up who betrayed his party’s base values and the vast majority of his constituents, not to mention being a spineless wimp. The Party couldn’t have had a worse minority leader. I'd even have preferred Joe Lieberman; he, though far too conservative, is at least honest and straight forward about what and who he supports.
[right][snapback]76962[/snapback][/right]

DeLay Slams Supreme Court Justice


One way would be for the House
Judiciary Committee to investigate the clause in the Constitution that says "judges can serve as long as they serve with good behavior," he said. "We want to define what good behavior means. And that's where you have to start."
According to Tom DeLay's interpretation of what is good behavior?
[right][snapback]76999[/snapback][/right]

You mean cash and carry justice?
[right][snapback]77002[/snapback][/right]

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
Tue Apr 19, 7:56 PM ET



House Majority Leader Tom DeLay intensified his criticism of the federal courts on Tuesday, singling out Supreme Court Justice    Anthony Kennedy's work from the bench as "incredibly outrageous" because he has relied on international law and done research on the Internet.


"Absolutely. We've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That's just outrageous," DeLay told Fox News Radio. "And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."

Although Kennedy was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Reagan, a conservative icon, he has aroused conservatives' ire by sometimes agreeing with the court's more liberal members. Nevertheless, it is unusual for a congressional leader to single out a Supreme Court justice for criticism.

Dan Allen, a DeLay spokesman, declined comment on the interview.

DeLay himself has been criticized for his comments following Schiavo's death, which came despite Congress' passage of a law ordering the courts to review her case. All of the federal courts, from the trial judge in Florida to the Supreme Court, refused to do so.

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," DeLay said in a statement.

He apologized last week, saying he had spoken in an "inartful" way.

Conservatives have been pushing to get the Senate to confirm    President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees, which Senate Democrats are blocking. The House has no power over which judges are given lifetime appointments to the federal bench.

However, DeLay has called repeatedly for the House to find a way to hold the federal judiciary accountable for its decisions. "The judiciary has become so activist and so isolated from the American people that it's our job to do that," DeLay said.

One way would be for the House    Judiciary Committee to investigate the clause in the Constitution that says "judges can serve as long as they serve with good behavior," he said. "We want to define what good behavior means. And that's where you have to start."

___

On the Net:

DeLay: http://www.majorityleader.gov

The fool rags on a Reagan appointee.

The fool has a website, too.

The fool doesn't understand that we have international law obligations under our Constitution.

Or, I hope, he understands, and understands his base doesn't.....

Somehow it's easier if he's criminally manipulative than if he's just stupid.
[right][snapback]77011[/snapback][/right]

The fool rags on a Reagan appointee.

The fool has a website, too.

The fool doesn't understand that we have international law obligations under our Constitution.

Or, I hope, he understands, and understands his base doesn't.....

Somehow it's easier if he's criminally manipulative than if he's just stupid.
[right][snapback]77011[/snapback][/right]

See him waving the musket around on stage the other night?

The more I see him the more I despise him and his cowardly, unethical fellow Republicans for not doing the decent, honorable thing. But then again, we're talking about  Republicans. They have no credibility, nothing but a pack of bought and paid for two-faced hypocrites.

Compare what Jim Wright did to what the Republicans are doing.
[right][snapback]77031[/snapback][/right]

In the new Christianity, the Republican version, money covers a multitude of sins.

He has shovelled sh*tloads of money, illegal and otherwise, to a bunch of the so-called morals and values hypocrites. Phony Pharasees.

Bought and paid for. Hell, the man can get away with anything legal, illegal, moral, immoral. It doesn't matter what he does as long as he says glory to god and amen at the end of the scam. They will stick by him.

He used an abused childrens fund to launder campaign contributions. If he can do that without reprisal then Republicans will tolerate almost anything.

Where is the liberal media on that? out to lunch.

Frist set up the same kind of scam. Where are the moral people? They took a bribe and shut their worthless traps.

Everyone has a price.
[right][snapback]77037[/snapback][/right]

I say now would be a very good time for good ol'fashioned smitin'...
[right][snapback]77039[/snapback][/right]

"...The fool doesn't understand that we have international law obligations under our Constitution...."

And they are? How are we obligated (I agree we are in accordance with the provisions in the Constitution - where we may differ is which of the tenets of "international law" are binding because of those provisions, which is why I ask - want to see if we are "on the same page" so to speak)?
[right][snapback]77050[/snapback][/right]

Hey, Nomarchy, a fine mornin' to ya.

I asked the questions of celtcahill ('twas him I quoted, as in "...the fool doesn't...")

I wanted to see what his understanding was, based on his statement.  Can we wait for that answer or do we join the fray without him?
[right][snapback]77090[/snapback][/right]

To summarize: the Senate does not ratify treaties; the President does. Treaties, in the U. S. sense, are not the only type of binding international agreement. Congressional-Executive agreements and Sole Executive agreements may also be binding. It is generally understood that treaties and Congressional-Executive agreements are interchangeable; Sole Executive agreements occupy a more limited space constitutionally and are linked primarily if not exclusively to the President’s powers as commander in chief and head diplomat. Treaties and other international agreements are subject to the Bill of Rights. Congress may supersede a prior inconsistent treaty or Congressional-Executive agreement as a matter of U. S. law, but not as a matter of international law. Courts in the United States use their powers of interpretation to try not to let Congress place the United States in violation of its international law obligations. A self-executing treaty provision is the supreme law of the land in the same sense as a federal statute that is judicially enforceable by private parties. Even a non-self-executing provision of an international agreement represents an international obligation that courts are very much inclined to protect against encroachment by local, state or federal law. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the Author: 
Frederic L. Kirgis is Law School Alumni Professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, in Lexington, Virginia. He is the author of several books and articles on international law, has served as a member of the Board of Editors of the American Journal of International Law, and currently chairs the ASIL Insight Committee. 

I do wonder how Prof Kirgis squares his line about the Senate does not ratify treaties, the President does, with this from Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution itself:

"Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;..."

As I read that and was taught, a President can "make" (negotiate and sign) a treaty; but it cannot, and does not, become lawful and binding upon the US until the Senate approves (ratifies) by a two-thirds vote.

Just to get things rolling, I guess, I'll offer 1 example. The Kyoto Treaty.

It has been signed by a President.  It recently "entered into force" after meeting it's own internal defintition of sufficient international approval.  But is it then binding upon the US under the Constitution, now that it has entered "into force?"  No, it is not.  It has never gained Senate approval.  In point of fact it has not even been submitted by the Executive for such approval.  The Senate passed a resolution 96-0 that let the President know it was a "dead letter" if it ever reached their chambers.  Thus, it is not now, and never has been, part of "...the Supreme law of the Land.." (Article VI, Clause 2), despite its existence in "international law."

There are other examples of a similar vein.

Let the games begin.
[right][snapback]77095[/snapback][/right]

“Treaty” has a much more restricted meaning under the constitutional law of the United States. It is an international agreement that has received the “advice and consent” (in practice, just the consent) of two-thirds of the Senate and that has been ratified by the President. The Senate does not ratify treaties. When the Senate gives its consent, the President--acting as the chief diplomat of the United States--has discretion whether or not to ratify the instrument. Through the course of U. S. history, several instruments that have received the Senate’s consent have nonetheless remained unratified. Those instruments are not in force for the United States, despite the Senate’s consent to them.

Not all international agreements negotiated by the United States are submitted to the Senate for its consent. Sometimes the Executive Branch negotiates an agreement that is intended to be binding only if sent to the Senate, but the President for political reasons decides not to seek its consent. Often, however, the Executive Branch negotiates agreements that are intended to be binding without the consent of two-thirds of the Senate. Sometimes these agreements are entered into with the concurrence of a simple majority of both houses of Congress (“Congressional-Executive agreements”); in these cases the concurrence may be given either before or after the Executive Branch negotiates the agreement. On other occasions the President simply enters into an agreement without the intended or actual participation of either house of Congress (a “Presidential,” or “Sole Executive” agreement). The extent of the President’s authority to enter into Sole Executive agreements is controversial, as will be noted below. 

Although some Senators have at times taken the position that certain important international agreements must be submitted as treaties for the Senate’s advice and consent, the prevailing view is that a Congressional-Executive agreement may be used whenever a treaty could be. This is the position taken in the American Law Institute’s Restatement Third of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 303, Comment e. Under the prevailing view, the converse is true as well: a treaty may be used whenever a Congressional-Executive agreement could be. 

"...The fool doesn't understand that we have international law obligations under our Constitution...."

And they are? How are we obligated (I agree we are in accordance with the provisions in the Constitution - where we may differ is which of the tenets of "international law" are binding because of those provisions, which is why I ask - want to see if we are "on the same page" so to speak)?
[right][snapback]77050[/snapback][/right]

Hu

Agreed.  And in the cases of the Treaties you noted - all were signed and ratified.  No issue as I see it.

But - sidebar alert - do you have a link for the Gitmo assertion?  I hadn't seen/heard that claim.  Just curious.

As to the detainee's status under the GC.s (specifically Covention III, Part 1, Article 4 part A) from my reading of it ( see http://www.genevaconventions.org/ ), they do not fit the conditions to be declared POWs as outlined in the above reference at Sections (2) [edit note it gives a smiley for the "b' in paretheses]  and (d) nor at Section 6 of Article 4.  And indeed we would seem to have fulfilled the conditions contained in the second paragraph of Article 5 by actually assigning them a status of enemy comabatant or illegal combatant ( status determined by "a competent tribunal").  In any event, it has been the stated policy that these detainess shall be afforded protections like those available under the GC. Even AG Gonzales did not recommend changing that policy in his memo even though he could find nothing that granted them such protection under the Conventions themselves.  At least that was my reading of the memo in another fora (I even posted the quote).

In the case of the soldier you mentioned who objected to having to wear a NATO uniform (I believe it was wearing a blue beret or helmet vice that of the forces of the United States as he considered it an unlawful order) - he was given punishment under the UCMJ provisions for having disobeyed what was adjuged a lawful order. In other words he lost his case.[right][snapback]77115[/snapback][/right]

No. 02-1155

In the Supreme Court of the United States

COALITION OF CLERGY, LAWYERS & PROFESSORS,
ET AL., PETITIONERS


v.

GEORGE WALKER BUSH,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.




ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION

THEODORE B. OLSON
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
ROBERT D. MCCALLUM, JR.
Assistant Attorney General
PAUL D. CLEMENT
Deputy Solicitor General
GREGORY G. GARRE
DAVID B. SALMONS
Assistants to the Solicitor General
ROBERT M. LOEB
SHARON SWINGLE
Attorneys
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202) 514-2217


QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the court of appeals correctly held that petitioners, an ad hoc group of clergy, lawyers, and professors with no relationship with any of the individuals on whose behalf they purport to sue, lack next-friend standing to seek a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of the alien detainees held by the United States military at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

...Like the prisoners in Eisentrager, the detainees in this case are aliens who were seized abroad during military hostilities and are held at a location, the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, outside the sovereign territory of the United States. See Lease Agreement, art. III (recognizing "ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba" over Guantanamo); Pet. App. 55-58; cf. United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 219, 221-222 (1949) (distinguishing between "possessions" and "sovereignty," and recognizing that leased military base in Newfoundland was in "foreign country" and "subject to the sovereignty of another nation" rather than the United States). Under Eisentrager, such aliens held abroad do not enjoy "the privilege of litigation" in United States courts. 339 U.S. at 777; see Pet. App. 51-53.7....

On November 18, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed claims filed by a group of activists (including former Attorney General Ramsey Clark) who were seeking the release of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters being detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The decision was a victory for WLF, which had filed a brief urging dismissal. The court agreed with WLF's argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing to file suit because they failed to demonstrate that they had any relationship whatsoever with the detainees. WLF is also involved in another pending suit >(Al Odah v. United States) in which family members are challenging the Guantanamo Bay detentions.



Case Status:


   Victory. Supreme Court review denied on May 19, 2003.

Hysteria and semantics.

It's just plain shameful.
[right][snapback]77134[/snapback][/right]