• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. acknowledges killing of four U.S. citizens in counterterrorism operations

davidtaylorjr said:
What powers are conservatives applauding?
Click to expand...

They have either applauded or remained silent over violating the Constitution with the killing of US citizens.
 
Geoist said:
They have either applauded or remained silent over violating the Constitution with the killing of US citizens.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it does violate the Constitution. As I have previously pointed out; the State can restrict or deny any right so long as it can demonstrate a compelling State interest in doing so. That is a pretty high standard, but I think the State interest in defending the nation from terrorists roaming and plotting freely meets that criteria. I also think the fact that the actions required to provide due process in these situations constitutes an undue, and frankly unacceptable, burden also works in the State's favor. This practice would undoubtedly be upheld. With that in mind, I do believe that there should be greater oversight and judicial review of each case. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court rejected the practice of trial in absentia as unconstitutional without exception or I would strongly support that option.
 
Napoleon said:
I don't believe it does violate the Constitution. As I have previously pointed out; the State can restrict or deny any right so long as it can demonstrate a compelling State interest in doing so. That is a pretty high standard, but I think the State interest in defending the nation from terrorists roaming and plotting freely meets that criteria. I also think the fact that the actions required to provide due process in these situations constitutes an undue, and frankly unacceptable, burden also works in the State's favor. This practice would undoubtedly be upheld. With that in mind, I do believe that there should be greater oversight and judicial review of each case. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court rejected the practice of trial in absentia as unconstitutional without exception or I would strongly support that option.
Click to expand...

Where in the document does it say the state can deny a right IF it can demonstrate a "compelling" reason for doing so?

What compelling purpose has the government put forth? What the hell is due process, and why do we need it?
 
Napoleon said:
You are familiar with strict scrutiny, right?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Where in the document does it say the state can deny a right IF it can demonstrate a compelling reason for doing so?

What is due process, and why do we need it? Is it an option? If so, by what authority?
 
Napoleon said:
If you know what strict scrutiny is then I'm surprised you're asking the below question.



The letter of the Constitution is not all that matters.
Click to expand...

The spirit of the law gives life, while the letter of the law brings death.

Yes, I agree that the letter is not all that matters. I appreciate the straight answer--it's a sign of the strength of your position.
 
The saddest thing is the realization that America had a more emotional response to The Red Wedding than they did to this news story.
 
Napoleon said:
I don't believe it does violate the Constitution. As I have previously pointed out; the State can restrict or deny any right so long as it can demonstrate a compelling State interest in doing so.
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution does it say that? Every US citizen is entitled to fair treatment and trial by our State. Who did they demonstrate compelling reasoning to?
 
Last edited:
davidtaylorjr said:
Example?
Click to expand...

They have remained silent for most part over NDAA. They have also applauded or remained silent over the execution of US citizens without trial.
 
This, combined with today's news about the FISA warrants, shows how completely out of control the government is.

ACLU and others have been warning about this since the fraudulent war on terror began. The chickens have come home to roost, and the average american does not even care. :(
 
Geoist said:
Where in the Constitution does it say that? Every US citizen is entitled to fair treatment and trial by our State. Who did they demonstrate compelling reasoning to?
Click to expand...

As I mentioned before, the letter of the Constitution is not all that matters. We already know that rights are not absolute and we know there is a process of vetting laws which restrict and create exceptions to them. Everyone should also know that no law or action on the part of the State is subject to strict scrutiny before their implementation; only after. This policy has already been subjected to judicial review and we had a taste of what the response from a court asserting jurisdiction would be: "All U.S. citizens may avail themselves of the U.S. judicial system if they present themselves peacefully, and no U.S. citizen may simultaneously avail himself of the U.S. judicial system and evade law enforcement authorities."
 
Napoleon said:
As I mentioned before, the letter of the Constitution is not all that matters.
Click to expand...

If it is an act that clearly violates the Constitution THEN the Constitution does matter. There is no point in having a law if you are not going to enforce it.
 
Napoleon said:
As I mentioned before, the letter of the Constitution is not all that matters. We already know that rights are not absolute and we know there is a process of vetting laws which restrict and create exceptions to them. Everyone should also know that no law or action on the part of the State is subject to strict scrutiny before their implementation; only after. This policy has already been subjected to judicial review and we had a taste of what the response from a court asserting jurisdiction would be: "All U.S. citizens may avail themselves of the U.S. judicial system if they present themselves peacefully, and no U.S. citizen may simultaneously avail himself of the U.S. judicial system and evade law enforcement authorities."
Click to expand...

It so happens that the letter and spirit of the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Any legislative product in violation of the letter and spirit of that document is null and void. That has been recognized by the earliest courts in our system.

You offer the specious reasoning that the legislative product is superior to the founding document. Pure nonsense and hogwash Napoleon. :roll:
 
Henry David said:
You offer the specious reasoning that the legislative product is superior to the founding document. Pure nonsense and hogwash Napoleon. :roll:
Click to expand...

I obviously disagree. Its all well and good to offer drive-by opinions, but I'm still waiting for the opposition to provide an alternative. How can due process be provided to a person who cannot be captured? Do you have a refutation for the judge's reasoning? Will we start charging police officers for violating due process because they shot and killed an armed and dangerous suspect?
 
Napoleon said:
I obviously disagree. Its all well and good to offer drive-by opinions, but I'm still waiting for the opposition to provide an alternative. How can due process be provided to a person who cannot be captured? Do you have a refutation for the judge's reasoning? Will we start charging police officers for violating due process because they shot and killed an armed and dangerous suspect?
Click to expand...

The "alternative" is the rule of law in accordance with the Supreme Law of the Land, and the principles that have evolved through Stare Decisis.

Not that I agree with all court decisions, but that is the way it works, and has since the earliest days. The dissenting opinions are too often more compelling and principled than the majority opinions.

All you offer is some bizarre hypotheticals not related to the thread question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom