Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Sadras]

From what I've read, his point is not that Obama isn't wrong. His point is that Obama would not be legally capable of performing those ethically/morally wrong actions without using powers voted for by congress (who were trying to appease constituents who blindly wanted something done thanks to climate of fear that was whipped up at the time), and singed into law by Bush

Trying to appease constituents? Is that how you see Congress really, that they're the good guys and so congress had no choice because of all that damn pressure the constituents were putting on them?

 

[Umbran]

Trying to appease constituents? Is that how you see Congress really, that they're the good guys and so congress had no choice because of all that damn pressure the constituents were putting on them?

"Trying to appease" sounds less like "giving in to pressure" to me, and sounds more like "pandering to get votes in the future".

Congress is highly swayed by what their constituents will think of them. If everyone is scared and feeling that Something Must Be Done, Congress probably lacks the will or ability to tell the public to calm down and *think* about what they're asking for.

The President occasionally has the will - "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." - but not always.

This is part of the reason hwy we have the SCOTUS, which has a degree of separation from the short term voting cycles of the elected officials. In theory, they give us the ability to correct some stupid pandering blunders. Sometimes.

 

[Sadras]

"Trying to appease" sounds less like "giving in to pressure" to me, and sounds more like "pandering to get votes in the future".

Ah! That didn't even cross my radar.

Congress is highly swayed by what their constituents will think of them. If everyone is scared and feeling that Something Must Be Done, Congress probably lacks the will or ability to tell the public to calm down and *think* about what they're asking for.

The President occasionally has the will - "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." - but not always.

Guess perhaps I'm a little jaded, my line of thinking falls with Mark Twain's "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it." There have been variations of that quote since.

This is part of the reason hwy we have the SCOTUS, which has a degree of separation from the short term voting cycles of the elected officials. In theory, they give us the ability to correct some stupid pandering blunders. Sometimes.

I see the system is there, just perhaps poorly executed. Apologies if this may sound like a silly question, but can SCOTUS overrule something like the Patriot Act? Do they have that power?

 

[Umbran]

My position is that there is no justification for the U.S. to be targeting Americans with drone strikes. If there is a law that allows it, then that law be damned. It's murder.

If you stated is as, "there is no *moral* justification for the US to be targeting Americans with drone strikes," we probably would note that morals are not universal, but otherwise not argue with you much. Ultimately, that would be a personal opinion.

So long as you leave it as possibly concerning *legal* justification, well, then there's grounds for debate.

I am not sure where you get the idea that the key differentiator is citizenship, though.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

They do have the power to declare a law like the Patriot Act unconstitutional, but cannot do so by themselves. They have to wait for a case to be brought that is properly plead to do so. IOW, they have to wait for:

1) an actual plaintiff who can allege a harm
2) that the SCOTUS can correct or compensate for
3) that actually alleges- with specificity- the harm occurred because some aspect of the law is unconstitutional
4) n a case where the SCOTUS actually has jurisdiction

 

[billd91]

They do have the power to declare a law like the Patriot Act unconstitutional, but cannot do so by themselves. They have to wait for a case to be brought that is properly plead to do so. IOW, they have to wait for:

1) an actual plaintiff who can allege a harm
2) that the SCOTUS can correct or compensate for
3) that actually alleges- with specificity- the harm occurred because some aspect of the law is unconstitutional
4) and the SCOTUS actually has jurisdiction

And with the secrecy inherent in many of these laws, particularly the USA PATRIOT Act (it is actually a tortuous acronym), being able to be allege a specific harm is very difficult.

 

[Umbran]

Apologies if this may sound like a silly question, but can SCOTUS overrule something like the Patriot Act? Do they have that power?

In a word: Yes.

In more words: The Patriot Act is just a law. It bears no more weight than any other law. If it can be seen as in violation of the Constitution, the SCOTUS can in theory strike it down - this goes to any Federal, State, or local law, regulation, or ordinance. Note, the Patriot Act has many parts, and the SCOTUS has a tradition of striking down sections of a law, without striking down the whole thing.

It also requires somebody actually bring a case to the court. The Court cannot proactively look at a law and say, "Sorry, this must go." It is, in fact, entirely possible for a *lower* Federal court to kill some or all of the Patriot Act. We would probably expect the government to appeal such, until it reached the highest court around, or until all levels of appeal have said, "Nope, the lower court decision stands."

 

[Umbran]

And with the secrecy inherent in many of these laws, particularly the USA PATRIOT Act (it is actually a tortuous acronym), being able to be allege a specific harm is very difficult.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Let us look at two cases:

1) NSA mass data collections - this was a secret program, and it tool Edward Snowden to make us aware of it. Once it was made public, the ACLU was all over it, taking it to court. But, very difficult to allege harm if you don't know it is happening, yes.

2) Our drone-killed American citizen terrorist - alleging specific harm here is pretty obvious, as a man is dead. That's pretty specific and harmful. The real problem is less alleging harm as it is identifying which piece of law is actually broken here. Is it the Foreign Intelligence Services Act (of 1978, that created the classified FISA court that we suspect might have presided over the surveillance that yielded the information that led to his being called an "enemy combatant")? Is it the Patriot Act (which extended some powers of the FISA court)? Or, is it something else entirely? You have to be able to point at the law that's problematic.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, any good litigator- like most of the ones in the ACLU- taking a case like that is going to spam his options: he'll claim all or most of those as being a key part of the problem. Discovery will let him refine or expand.

However, even though the ACLU has done just that, discovery has been less fruitful than expected because the judges believe the executive branch's claims for withholding evidence in the name of "national security".

 

[Umbran]

However, even though the ACLU has done just that, discovery has been less fruitful than expected because the judges believe the executive branch's claims for withholding evidence in the name of "national security".

For the bulk data collection program the point is largely moot. Congress, recognizing it had a turkey on its hands, decided to (metaphorically) butcher it. The program is set to end in December anyway.

But, specifically, just this month:

"Judge Leon specifically ordered the N.S.A. to stop collecting phone records for one customer of Verizon: a lawyer in California and his law firm. But he did so, he wrote, knowing that the Justice Department had said that blocking the collection of just one person’s records might require shutting down the entire program because it would be technically difficult to screen him out."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/u...w-to-nsa-phone-surveillance-program.html?_r=0