The Supreme Court cannot rule on any issue until it comes before them in a case at bar. I remember from Con Law 101, George Washington once asked the SC for an advisory opinion about the constitutionality of a proposed treaty. He was rebuffed. They told him, in essence, “We can’t do that, we can only rule on actual cases.”
You’ve got the whole process backwards. Look, criminal prosecutors face this problem all the time – that is, a situation which involves a gray area of the law, in which the suspect (even if he/she did everything the police investigation suggests) might or might not have broken any law. So they charge the suspect with every crime that can be plausibly argued to fit the alleged facts. And they accept the risk that, sometimes, they will win at trial and the defendant will appeal and the appellate court will decide nothing the defendant was proven to have done constitutes a crime. That’s how the law is made. It is not an excuse to shy away from the first step of the process.
It’s because of the “case or controversy” requirement in Article III of the Constitution (Note – cite goes to Wikipedia; view at your own risk). It requires that there be an actual dispute between adverse parties which is capable of being resolved by the court.
But now ask yourself: Is there an actual case or controversy right now?
No, you’ve got it backwards. Note that in your hypothetical, the dispute is handled in court. Charges are filed in court. The bounds of the law are determined in court. That’s the judiciary’s role: decide Constitutional and legal issues like this one.
All I’m suggesting is that the dispute be handled in court before we start Congressional hearings and launching special prosecutors to investigate what might not even be a crime. Why are we going to have independent investigators working when they won’t even know what they should be investigating? Special prosecutors do not have the power to determine where the bounds of the law lie; they only have the power to determine whether a law has been broken once the bounds of that law have been made clear. And Congress doesn’t even have that power.
In short, launching a special prosecutor or Congressional investigations puts the cart before the horse. Let the Courts do their job first, and then we can revisit the issue of special prosecutors when we know what the law requires.
I do think the AG is too biased to be in on the investigation, but 2 concurrent investigations would be counterproductive. Pick one-- I don’t have a preference which. The Special Prosecutor is probably the better course of action, but Congress may want to insert itself directly.
No, I said it wasn’t clear if the current laws were inadequate. That’s not the same thing.
If we knew that, why would we need an investigation? You’re putting the cart before the horse. We don’t know if anything illegal has been done-- that is what the investigation will try to determine.
I didn’t know that was one of the options. I think companies should do what they think is in their best interest. I don’t take a posistion, so I guess you could say I don’t endorse it. But I wouldn’t discourage it, either.
That’s appeal to emotion. We can argue about what constitutes torture-- there isn’t an objective line you can draw. Additionally, the constitution doesn’t cover non-US citizens on non-US soil. However, the constitution does forbid slavery. As for Genocide… that’s just grandstanding. The President has to defend the US. If a particular ethnic group vowed to fight the US to the death, and enlisted the entire ethnic group in its cause, yes the prez could commit genocide (eg, the ethnic army uses all it’s non-combatants as human shields). See? It’s easy to play the game of hyperbole.
Depends on what Al Gore has done. If he has openned communications with terrorist organizations, yes.
What nonsense! How can it be handled in court, until an indictment is brought, either by the Justice Department, or as a result of Congressional hearings, or as a result of the investigation of a special prosecutor or independent counsel? All equivalent, for these purposes. What should be the first step?
Prosecuting attorneys do not have to know what the law is before they can bring an indictment – only what the law might plausibly be argued to be.
Boswell once asked Johnson (who was a lawyer among other things), “How can you present a specious argument to a judge?” Johnson replied, “But I do not know it is a specious argument, until the judge has decided upon it. It is his business to judge.”
Why?! If two or more concurrent investigations reach contrary conclusions – so much the better! There will be that much more likelihood that what has been hidden will be dragged into the light, and that many more opportunities to thresh out all the legal and factual issues clearly and in public.
:mad: I beg your pardon sir. The Constitution covers any action of any kind by the U.S. government, anywhere in the world. Whether those actions are on U.S. soil, or involve U.S. citizens, might present different issues of constitutional law; but the government can do nothing to which constitutional law is irrelevant.
All right, now I won’t even beg your pardon! I have a constitutional right to “open communications with terrorist organizations,” so long as I do not engage in any criminal conspiracy with them! A contrary interpretation would make it impossible for, say, an American journalist to interview Osama bin Laden. As any journalist should have a right to do – and without unwarranted government surveillance of the communication.
The President need not be indicted for this to come before the Supreme Court. All that needs to happen is that individuals sue to determine their rights.
Once again, the ACLU has already filed suit. That suit has obviously taken place without any indictment, special prosecutor, or Congressional hearings. So those things are obviously unnecessary to determine the issue in Court. And the ACLU’s suit is likely sufficient to determine whether the President’s actions were legal and/or Constitutional.
Absolutely true. We aren’t required to wait for the Court to determine what the law is before we prosecute someone for violating it. But doesn’t it make more sense to do so? If we’re going to appoint a special prosecutor, then isn’t it a better idea to give him some idea of what the law is, so he’ll know what he’s investigating, what facts are relevant, what actions are illegal, what parties he should be questioning, what questions he should ask, and what evidence he should gather? If we’re going to have Congressional hearings, then wouldn’t it be better to at least agree on what the hearings should be about?
Moreover, the special prosecutor and Congressional hearings can’t actually reach any conclusions until after the Courts have ruled on these matters. They don’t have the power of the Courts to decide whether the President’s actions were Constitutional. So if we start with Congressional hearings and special prosecutors before the matters have been determined the Courts, their results are either going to be made irrelevant by the Courts’ determination, or their results are going to have to be delayed until after the Courts rule. And if the Courts later decide that the President acted in a purely Constitutional manner, then the special prosecutor and Congressional hearings will be irrelevant anyway.
Johnson is right. The judge’s business to judge the legal arguments. So why are you arguing that we need to immediately start a special prosecutor or Congressional hearings? Let the judge do his business. Then, if the President’s actions were unconstitutional, we can have all the special prosecutors and Congressional hearings you want.
I think we’re talking about two different things. Yes, the constitution governs our actions throughout the world, but the rights guaranteed to US citizens on US soil by the constitution do not extend to non-US citizens on non-US soil. In the context of my discussion with the person who I was resonding to, I stand by my statement.
I see. So no government entity should take action on these matters until SC (or some lower federal court?) has ruled on the ACLU’s civil suit. And it is just fortuitous happenstance that that almost certainly would put off any investigation until after the 2006 midterm elections. :dubious:
It is not their business to decide – it is their business to investigate. Until they do so – using investigatory powers that go far beyond the ACLU’s subpoena power in a civil suit – we will not really know what happened; and until we do, we cannot even begin to decide constitutional issues. There is no good reason not to have several concurrent investigations. (See above.)
Furthermore . . . Ken Starr kept an investigation going for years – after it was long established that the Whitewater business itself imputed no criminal or impeachable offenses on Clinton’s part – just in confidence that he might turn up with something he could use, even if it was completely unrelated to the investigation’s original subject matter. Which he did. Sauce for the goose, eh?
Never mind, I’ll do it for you. The “Insular Cases” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Cases – were brought before the SC from 1900 to 1922 to settle the question, “Does the Constitution follow the flag?” I.e., did the inhabitants of the islands the U.S. had conquered or annexed, living under American rule, have constitutional rights? The upshot of the SC decisions was, no. Congress could govern the territory possessions however it pleased.
Now, by Og, don’t you agree the Insular Cases are a shame and stain on our national conscience? And don’t you think it’s high time we reversed and rejected that kind of imperialist thinking?!
Sorry to come late to the party. I read Gore’s speech today and figured there was something here about it.
The speech was excellent and memorable.
At Andrew Tobias today, he not only includes the entire Gore speech, but also a related writing titled “Bush Has Crossed the Rubicon” by Paul Craig Roberts, an Assistant Treasury Secretary under Reagan.
here’s a snipped bit of it. The connection to the fears raised by Gore are obvious.
I consider most politics and issues small. This is not a small issue. This makes most other issues small, IMO.
Right. Because a special prosecutor would wrap up his investigation before the 2006 midterms. How long has Patrick Fitzgerald been going now? And of course we could count of Congressional hearings wrapping up before the 2006 midterms, right?
Right back at ya with the :dubious: .
Moreover, I don’t think we need surrogates in Congress or special prosecutors to conduct an investigation. We seem to be doing a pretty good job right now.
And I’m pretty confident that the Dems aren’t going to give Bush a free pass in the midterms merely because he hasn’t been indicted yet. Nor do I think they’ll let the issue pass from America’s thoughts and minds.
So I’m not really sure what your point is. There’s no real benefit to starting an investigation before the midterms. The only purpose it would seem to serve is to allow Dems to use the investigation as proof in itself of wrongdoing.
Really? And yet so many people, including Gore, have already finally decided the constitutional issues. But it’s nice to know that you’re reserving judgment.
As for their investigative powers, a special investigator/prosecutor does not have greater powers than a litigant like the ACLU. Congress may have greater power to hear confidential information, but only if the individual Congressmen have national security clearance, and the Congressmen would not be able to disclose the information they hear. So it’s not likely that the investigations would bring any additional facts to light.
Other than the fact that several concurrent investigations would be irrelevant, politically-motivated, and ultimately may be a waste of everyone’s time and money? You’re absolutely right. No reason at all.
As long as you’re supporting several concurrent investigations for all the right reasons.
It might make a difference, if the stars aligned correctly and the special investigator’s guess at the law turned out to be correct. But it would still be terribly inefficient and wasteful. On the other hand, I doubt starting Congressional hearings right away would make any sort of difference whatsoever, except it would give our Congressmen and women more opportunities to speak endlessly about nothing at all.
No, I’m a reader of the New York Times, Washington Post, and numerous other papers and websites. I’m also a member of the American public, as well as a poster on the SDMB.
None of which (as such) have the power to subpoena the relevant information in this matter. Investigative reporters can ask questions of officials willing to talk, that’s all; and I don’t think it’s enough. (The expose of Watergate was a fluke, made possible by a willing inside source.)
You’re absolutely right that newspapers and reporters don’t generally have the right to subpoena information (with a few exceptions). But do you know who does? Litigants. Like the ACLU.
And I’m not so sure how you can say that Watergate was a “fluke” considering the number and severity of leaks in all modern administrations: CIA jails, NSA wiretapping, CIA airlines (including the names of said airlines), the Starr grand jury, the Barrett Report, Iraq battle and invasion plans, and of course the annual leak that the US has a plan for invading [insert ally here]. These days, it seems more remarkable when the government is able to keep a secret.
Who’s “we”? (Are you a member of the ACLU?)