Well, Watada, or at least his lawyer, needs a drug screening if they think that’s going to fly at the court-martial.
Serious question, has that defense ever been tried and work?
Cause it seems like the kind of thing that sounds a lot better outside a courtroom than in.
Interesting!
The Law doesn’t play much of a role in your legal system, does it?
Sorry, my delicious response is to ask for a cite of the controlling legal authority that says you have the right to determine what is a violation of the Constitution.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m pretty sure he shares the same controlling legal authority that you do when you have determined that banning same sex marriage doesn’t violate the equal protection clause, your definition of the rights of US citizens is correct and others are wrong, people don’t have a right to housing, and so on and so on.
I don’t think anyone complains that you aren’t in a position of authority when you argue your view of legal matters. It is unfair to argue that other peoples’ well-reasoned opinions are invalid simply because they aren’t, either. I’m not sure why you can’t address the substance of the argument,
There has been quite a lot made in this thread about who has the authority to interpret UN Security Council resolutions. Noting that UNSC 687 imposed obligations on Iraq in relation to the 1991 cease-fire, do you think can determine whether those obligations are being upheld?
Could any country so determine? For example, if Iran decided that Iraq was violating the cease fire, do you believe Iran could have invaded Iraq at any time from 1991-2002 and legitimately done so under the previously mentioned resolutions?
Could Blackwater just decide that Iraq was not in compliance, and raise a private army of US citizens to invade Iraq?
Wrong. And if the Security Council felt that their order was being contravened, why didn’t they say so?
And if your answer is, “Because the US would have vetoed it,” then why didn’t they unanimously adopt the resolution but for the US’s veto?
Answer: because the US’s action did NOT contravene their previous resolutions.
“QED.”
But Shodan can point to controlling legal authority for those opinions.
Federal law, 1 USC § 7, which is entitled to the presumption of constitutionality, defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Morteover, federal caselaw (Baker v. Nelson at the Supereme Court and more recently Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) all have held the federal constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans. Several district courts have ruled in opposition, but those are not precedent-setting.
“Health care is a right,” is a more nebulous statement, since “right,” can mean many different things. But it’s beyond cavil that the “right to life,” is legally different than the “right to health care,” since the right to life is explicitly enshrined in the Constitution, and I can point to a zillion court cases that address the boundaries of that right. The right to health care is not a meaningless phrase, but all Shodan said was that it was not the same, legally, as the right to life, which is clearly true.
The same analysis may be applied to the “right,” to housing.
Iran: “Legitimately?” No. But without violating the UN Charter? Yes.
Blackwater: not a member state.
Actually, the law plays very much a role in my legal system.