If he can fire Secretary of the Treasury O’Neil for not doing his job properly, why not Ashcroft? Ashcroft has clearly disregarded his oath to protect and defend the Constitution, yet he’s allowed to stay. What’s up with that?
Well, he can fire (or request the resignation of) Ashcroft. If he hasn’t done so, it’s probably because he approves of the way Ashcroft is doing his job.
Ashcroft is doing his job under Bush’s orders. You could write your congressman and demand an investigation.
Or you could fire Bush in 2004.
Ashcroft is exactly what Bush wants, a person who is able to “disregard his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.” This gives more power to the government. Something deep inside tells me what the government wants is power. :eek:
Power to the people
No, you’re wrong. Ashcroft hasn’t disregarded his oath, and he has zealously protected and defended the Constitution.
A gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied.
- Rick
YES! Thanks for asking.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/101701/Worldandnation/Ashcroft__Detainees_i.shtml
Of course everything to be read about whether or not Ashcroft violates the Constitution is all theoretical because the government is too secreteive for there to be any hard evidence.
And exactly how has Ashcroft violated his oath?
What gods G.W. intends to employ to improve the economy is beyond me. On the other hand, ditching Ashcroft as an essentially political move might be more effective.
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. A rubber stamp that the Justice Department uses to tap phone lines.
Fifth Amendment reads, in part:
"No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Have you read about Jose Padilla? He’s a U.S citizen who has been held for months, without charges being filed against him, and without access to legal counsel. Is this due process of law?
Yes it is, according to last week’s court decision. A judge held that the government DOES have the right to hold him like this, although he also held that Padilla must be given access to a lawyer.
There is no “Enemy Combatant” exception in the Bill of Rights and its laughable that Ashcroft is trying to write it in there.
Well, the previous tax cut has been so successful that I understand that is the only proposal GW has on the table.
Well, I guess every Attorney General that relied on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement also violated his oath, right? How about any attorneys general that argued for a community caretaker exception, or an inventory search exception? Are they also traitors to their oaths?
How about the Supreme Court justices that approved those exceptions? Are they oath-breakers as well?
The members of Congress that voted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - they, too, were untrue to their oaths? The President that signed the act into law - what about him?
The problem, Blalron, is that while you quote the Constituion in an effort to show how Ashcroft has violated it, that isn’t the whole story. What the Constitution MEANS is defined by case law and given effect by acts of Congress. The Constitution says nothing about allowing the cops to search a car they’ve impounded, even without probable cause. The Constitution never once mentions the brief detention and pat-down search founded upon less than probable cause known as the Terry search. But you would not, I assume, call any Attorney General whose Justice Department argued a Terry case to be in violation of his oath, would you?
You don’t get to make the rule about what is Constitutional, Blalron. Congress makes laws that carry a heavy presumption of constitutionality; the courts overturn those that are found to be violative.
So - are brief investigative detentions and pat-down searches without warrants or probable cause unconstitutional? And was first the Attorney General in office to argue the practice’s constitutionality an oath-breaker?
If not, then what is the distinction between that practice and Ashcroft’s?
- Rick
No it’s not the whole story. Ashcroft seems to take the view that he can do whatever he wants until a court tells him otherwise.
But a plain reading of the Sixth amendment, without any of the frou-frou, gave Padilla the right to an atorney. It shouldn’t have taken months for a court to give him that right if Ashcroft had given it to him before. And I’m sure he and his cronies fought tooth claw and nail to prevent him from getting legal counsel. Do you think he is following his oath of following the constitution to the best of his ability?
Well, when Danny Escobedo’s lawyer challenged his client’s confession being used against him, he asked the appeals court to find that the Constitution required that his client be actually told he had a right to remain silent. The prosecutors were stunned, and pointed out that the plain language of the Fifth Amendment said no such thing. I doubt they used the exact word “frou-frou” to describe their reaction to Escobedo’s argument, but the basic thrust was the same as you describe above: someone pushing a view that was unsupported by the plain language of the Constitution.
Were the judges that decided in favor of Escobedo in violation of their oaths?
Why is a “plain reading” acceptable in some circumstances, but not in others?
- Rick
Let me suggest that the fundamental difference between Secretary O’Neil and Atty Gen Ashcroft is that the people O’Neil was supposed to gratify, Wall Street investment houses, were not pleased with how the economy was going and O’Neil was in the position of a TV weatherman who didn’t produce sunshine on the 4th of July–it may not have been his doing and he may not have the power to fix it, but he is going to take the heat. In may well be a matter of throwing the baby to the wolves to save every body else.
Ashcroft was President’s the nod to the Christian right and the red neck wing of the party and he has been doing a dandy job of keeping those people happy. We can argue all we want that Atty Gen Ashcroft is advancing policies that trample on accepted Constitutional principals, but the fact remains that he is doing what the President needs to have him do–look as if something substantive is being done to stamp out and punish supposed terrorists and give the Christian Right and the red neck faction a sense that there is someone at the levers of power who is looking after their interests. As long as Ashcroft does not embarrass the President and gratifies his constituency his job is safe, bare breasted allegories of justice notwithstanding.
The answer is quite simple, actually: It’s acceptable when it gives people the maximum amount of civil rights. It’s safer to err on the side of freedom.
Strict Constructionists use the “plain reading” when it benefits their views of more governmental power, but when the “plain reading” doesn’t fit their agenda, they feel free to add things in (such as the “Enemy Combatant” disqualification).
Principles like the Miranda Warning, and the Exclusionary Rule (illegally obtained evidence and confessions are inadmissable) exist so that the Bill of Rights can actually be of any use.
If police could storm your house illegally and still use the evidence, than the 4th amendment really doesn’t protect us, now does it? If police can coerce you into confessing by creating an atmosphere of intimidation and not telling you that you have the right to remain silent during such a time of stress, you may feel compelled to “confess” to something you didn’t actually do. If that can be used as evidence, than the 5th amendment right against self incrimination isn’t really of any use either. So even though it’s not spelled out explicitly, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine has served us well, even if it’s not explicitly found in the constitution.
The Miranda Warning has been an accepted part of law for decades. Practically everyone knows about it. Why the prosecutors would be “stunned” about something that anyone who has watched even one episode of COPS or DRAGNET should know about is beyond me. If they are really that incompetent then they should find a new line of work.
And praytell WHICH strict constructionalist backed the enemy combatant disqualification? I only count two strict constructionalists on the Supreme Court bench (Scalia and Thomas [kind of]). Can you show me where either backed that?
Blalron, you have it exactly right and you have hit the nail on the head: “…seems to take the view that he can do whatever he wants until a court tells him otherwise.” No wonder so many Americans feel the need to own a gun: the courts take a long time to protect us from our government, during which time a rich and powerful government or other litigation adversary ruins us and our nation.