Fining "Human Shields".....

Most of that is answered here. There are also links there with business opportunities for anyone who thinks they can do a better job of rebuilding Iraq.

You can always look up Presidential docs at the Federal Register site.

 

How is it apples to oranges? The law is the law, right? They both broke the law. As good little citizens, one must obey the law, right?

Or maybe not. Perhaps, some people refuse to let the law dictate their moral convictions. History shows that there have been cases in the past where laws were unjust. Governments unjust. Leaders mad with power. There are times when a person must abide by their convictions, or sell their soul to the devil.

 

and there are consequences. {which you fail to understand}

rosa parks had them, and now so does she.

regardless of the issue. personally, i'm laughing at her inside.

 

And by what Constitutional authority did the Federal Government ban travel of US Citizens to Iraq? Where in the Constitution did the people empower the government to perform such a function?

I'm not arguing that what she did didn't violate something written somewhere by the Feds. I AM arguing that the ban in question is outside their authority and therefore meaningless.

Unfortunately, our system also requires her to put herself in the poor house in an effort to defend her right to travel freely to whatever destination she sees fit. Freedom means letting others do as they see fit, not just letting them do as you see fit.

 

Short version: I give a sh@t what Rosa did. It makes me hard. What the self righteous crusading old hack did makes me flacid.


Long version? I'll post that later today when I'm not in the middle of what I'm doing.

 

Federal travel bans are holdovers of the Cold War when attempts were made to restrict travel to Communist countries. The Supreme Court actually agreed with you and ruled that they were unconstitutional in the late 60's. Travel to Cuba was the main ping-pong ball - with Carter dropping the travel ban only to have Reagan reinstate them. But Ronnie was smart and didn't take any chances on the Supreme Court having their way with him again, and used currency controls to ice the cake. If you read the cited EO there are flavors of this same approach.

Personally, I think that travel bans are outdated - Americans should be free to travel at their own risk anywhere they want, even during wartime. Just don't whine when you get run over by a tank or shot in the a$$ with a mortar.

Speaking of constitutionality, what's your opinion on viewing these "human shields" as traitors? After all, the Constitution defines treason as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Could one argue that they were giving Saddam's regime aid and comfort? Perhaps.

 

I have a problem with calling anyone a "traitor" without a formal Declaration of War. But then again, I also have a problem with shipping our armed forces off to war without one either.

Which gets down to the root of the problem: it seems that much of the Consitution has been reduced to window dressing and Uncle Sam does whatever he pleases, words on paper to the contrary be damned.

Along the same lines, did you read about the Nevada State Supreme Court raising taxes on their own, in direct opposition to a Nevada State Constitution? In their words, the state's "compelling interest" in education trumps the Constitution.
So much for checks and balances.

And Mongo, this isn't mob rule. You shouldn't need a mob to have your rights protected. The state is supposed to protect your rights, not infringe upon them.

 

Indeed! the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are designed to protect us from the tyranny of the majority (mob rule).

 

The way I understand it, if you don't like a law, the first way to get it changed is to break it, and then challenge it in a court of law.

On the simplest level, that is.

 

Don't make me and my posse mob up one side of you and rule down the other, Lawyer boy.

 

You Talmadge St. chumps will get a major ass whippen from the LawyerBoyz. You'll be hit with a subpoena so hard your head will spin right off.

Rodger
Sgt. at Arms
LawyerBoyz M.C.

 

Yes, that's the way it's supposed to work. Sounds great, in theory.

In reality, doing so is flirting with financial ruin. Not too many folks have the economic resources to challenge the state to a test of Constitutionality in the courts. The state has limitless resources; the rest of us don't. Principles are all fine and dandy, but they don't put food on the table or a roof over your head.

 

Congratulations, Mongo, you just failed Civics 101. We don't live in a Democracy, we live in a Representative Republic. So mob rule doesn't apply here in any way, shape, or form and never has. It also doesn't change the fact that the Constitution is pretty clear on what is allowed and not allowed by the Federal government and yet it's run roughshod over every day. The fact that no one, in your perception, bitches about it is irrelevant. The Tenth Amendment is clear in it's meaning. Hell, the whole document is pretty clear in it's meaning and also in the Amendment process if we want to change it. The bottom line is that it's being violated on a daily basis and that rather than go through the Constitutionally-mandated amendment process, they just ignore it. And spare me the "they were elected BS" because a few pricks in DC passing laws is a far, far cry from a Constitutional Amendment ratified by three fourths of the states in the union. When the state can ignore with impugnity the laws created to control it, the future of the rule of law is in question.

 

Thanks Rodger. That scenario seems very similar to the stuff I've heard about.

You're alright for a lawyer.

 

No, a RR isn't mob rule at it's core; the Constitution is supposed to prevent that by limiting the government. When those words on paper no longer restrain the beast, what does? It's good nature? It's overarching benevolence? It's desire to be seen of as "swell" by the populace? You'll have to excuse me if I side with Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founders and want a little more than "trust me, we won't screw you over" as a restraint on the Federal Government. When the Constitution is ignored, what protects your rights enumerated in it? What prevents them from being trampled by the state?

I don't disagree that the world is a different place now than it was then. But the rules of the game haven't changed, at least on paper. What HAS changed is the states desire to ignore them and run roughshod over them.

And considering that less than half the population actually votes, saying "the people don't mind" isn't exactly a comfort. Most of them don't give a shit as long as the Super Bowl or Daytona 500 don't get pre-empted.