Current Events

Re: Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

onebornfree — Sat, 01 May 2010 23:48:48 GMT

bloomj31:

@Onebornfree, based on what I've read, I think it's safe to say that there was a strong anti-federalist movement BUT the Constitution never would've gotten passed had it not been agreed on by at least a majority of delegates that the Articles of Confederation had proven insufficient and ineffective as a central document. In other words, there was a larger group of Federalists than there were Anti-Federalists and the language in Article III is very open ended which suggests to me it was always understood that the Federal courts would basically be able to interject on almost any matter as long as a constitutional question was raised.

Anyways, we have digressed, lol.

" the Constitution never would've gotten passed had it not been agreed on by at least a majority of delegates that the Articles of Confederation had proven insufficient and ineffective as a central document."

Nevertheless, by article X of the Articles of Confederation, state delegates were only authorized to alter the Articles of Confederation, not create a brand new structure for government. This alteration required delegates from 9 of the 13 states to be present at any convention so held.

You are right, more state legislatures contained a majority of federalists, [in reality, "anti-federalist centralists" ,as real federalists supported the federal system of the Articles], and quickly ratified the new document.

However, opposition to the document continued to grow from the time of the final signing in Sept. 1787, through June 21 1788, when it was ratified in New Hampshire, the 9th state, and theoretically became the law of the land , to the point that Madison realized, that even though the 9th state had indeed ratified , there was a very real danger of open rebellion to it in the remaining non-signing states - courtesy of the continued agitations of the anti-federalists.

He therefor introduced into congress, on June 9th 1789 [i.e. almost a year after the 9th state had ratified], a first draft of a federal Bill of Rights designed to appease the growing opposition from the remaining uncooperative states.

In other words, despite the apparent federalist majority, [which you pointed out] Madison foresaw a political failure of the new document unless he could politically head off /appease the anti-federalist arguments.

"Anyways, we have digressed, lol"

I disagree . The subject of this thread mostly appears to be the "legality" of the Obama administrations pronouncement.

You yourself wondered whether it was "constitutional" or not.

I believe I have provided sufficient evidence that it is not, by any stretch of the imagination- [assuming , for the sake of argument that the constitution actually ever meant/ still means anything, that is, as you appear to believe].

Persons accused of a crime against the US government [specifically, one or the other, or both of, the only 2 listed federal crimes in the constitution] must be tried in a federal court, in front of a jury, and all evidence and witnesses against the defendants must be admitted or denied admittance as valid proof according to the evidentiary provisions listed in the 10 amendments [the bill of rights].

Of course, this is never going to happen.

Because the Constitution and Bill of rights means nothing other than what the government, out of convenience,says it means at any point in time,[ which may or may not directly contradict what it said it meant before], and never has, despite the extremely clear language of the bill of rights, the government can and will label any US citizen it so chooses as a "terrorist", without any of its "evidence" or witnesses having to be submitted to cross examination in front of a jury, or being subject to the strict evidentiary procedures proscribed within the first 10 amendments, and to execute/assassinate them on its say so , without a trial [ even a "show" trial!] occurring .

So watch out.

Regards, onebornfree

Re: Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

William — Sat, 01 May 2010 23:02:17 GMT

I wouldn't say that. It was a casual (and semi inebriated) conversation, and none of the lawyers actually read the article, so something important could have been missed.

Re: Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

bloomj31 — Sat, 01 May 2010 22:57:35 GMT

@Dondolee, case closed then I guess.

Re: Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

William — Sat, 01 May 2010 22:51:16 GMT

the only question that I would ask is, if it were legal, where would the President get the authority? Because I know that Presidents are given a lot of power to wage war, but they cannot declare war. They also cannot pass judgment although they can pardon people.

Ok, in legal terms it is as straight foward as it seems I guess. This was not an executive matter. There is no precedent or law where this would fit under Presidential war powers.

Re: Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

bloomj31 — Sat, 01 May 2010 19:23:39 GMT

@Onebornfree, based on what I've read, I think it's safe to say that there was a strong anti-federalist movement BUT the Constitution never would've gotten passed had it not been agreed on by at least a majority of delegates that the Articles of Confederation had proven insufficient and ineffective as a central document. In other words, there was a larger group of Federalists than there were Anti-Federalists and the language in Article III is very open ended which suggests to me it was always understood that the Federal courts would basically be able to interject on almost any matter as long as a constitutional question was raised.

Anyways, we have digressed, lol.

Re: Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

onebornfree — Sat, 01 May 2010 18:07:23 GMT

bloomj31:

So actually, there wasn't a comprehensive state court system set up in the Constitution. Apparently, the state courts were set up by mandate of the Congress with the authority of the necessary and proper clause.

. I don't think the language of article III suggests the Framers wanted any legal issue to be purely a state issue. What do you think?

EDIT: I'm not really disagreeing with you per se, I just don't think the Framer's intention was ever for the federal courts to only hear issues related to treason.

You are perhaps forgetting that the individual states already had their own laws, bills of rights and court systems set up , all or most of which operated under common law principles, to the best of my knowledge.

You are also perhaps forgetting that the Constutional Conventions themselves [especially the 2nd one] violated clauses of the Articles of Confederation.

Meaning, the states did not wish to give up any of their own pre-existing legal powers, especially the common law system in place most everywhere.

In a lot of ways, the constitution and its establishment of federal courts nationwide was about the states giving permission to the new federal government to have federal courts within their own states where necessary to try only the crimes stipulated within that document as being federal crimes- and nothing else.

The individual states did not wish to give up their own territorial legal authority to the new federal government, in any way, shape or form.[ Why would they?]

Because the constitution was so open -ended and liable to highly subjective interpretation favoring the federal government increasing its power over the states and their own [until then] areas of power and courts, the anti-federalists started to agitate as soon as they understood that the new document, despite its legal illegitimacy , was being taken seriously and in danger of enabling a coup d'etat of the existing federal system. [Which was exactly what happened, of course.]

As far as I am aware, the 9th and 10th amendments [along with the others] were a major part of the "bone" thrown to the the "dogs" [the anti-federalists] , to convince them that the newly proposed federal court system would indeed be limited to prosecuting only the crimes listed as being federal crimes in the future under the new system proposed, for as the anti-federalists had pointed out , the new document was, as written, in serious danger of establishing a federal court system in individual states for crimes other than those specified within it [ which is pretty much what yourself and others have evidently concluded it did in fact do- no offense intended].

In other words, the 9th and 10th amendments were written mostly to try to ensure that there would be no territorial encroachment by the new federal government on individual states rights to prosecute anything they stipulated as being a crime within their own borders, and that only the specific federal crimes referred to in the new document would be handled in new, federal courts - to be built , staffed and maintained with federal money, within those individual states.

And even in those federal trials, all accused had the right to trial by jury, and the prosecution [ie the federal government] had to closely follow all evidentiary procedures concerning physical evidence and supposed witnesses for the prosecution, as laid out in the federal bill of rights , which was mostly an echo of the pre-existing bills of rights already in operation under the pre-existing individual state legal systems.

Anyhoo, that's my [ warped] take.

Regards, onebornfree

Re: Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

ama gi — Sat, 01 May 2010 02:47:21 GMT

Needless to say, one or two guys here and there won't upset too many people, especially if they've got Arab names but if he does this a bunch of times, or to someone with a more American sounding name, there might be a serious reaction.

That's why they'll just change their names post mortem!

"The Department of Homeland Security reports that it neutralized an existential threat to American freedom. Twenty-nine year old Wahid Ahmed al-Maliki, who went by the alias of William A. Michael, was known to have joked about blowing up a high school at least once as a teenager. He was believed to have been training for jihad at a local health club."

Re: Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

bloomj31 — Sat, 01 May 2010 02:21:14 GMT

Lol, I definitely got my timeline mixed up, my fault.

But anyways, this is a little tricky. Article III starts: "the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and establish." So actually, there wasn't a comprehensive state court system set up in the Constitution. Apparently, the state courts were set up by mandate of the Congress with the authority of the necessary and proper clause.

The document continues: "the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States....

In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, those in which a state shall be party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction."

So there's clearly some truth to what you're saying in that it was always intended for inferior courts to handle smaller issues but the Supreme Court ALWAYS had final jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1824 in Osborn v Bank of US that a case raises a federal issue if "the title or right set up by the party may be defeated by one construction of the Constitution or law of the United States, and sustained by opposite construction, provided the facts necessary to support the action be made out."

Also in 1824 in Bank of the United States v. Planter's Bank of Georgia, it was established that "so long as a proposition of federal law is a logical antecedent of the plaintiff's claim, it is sufficient as a constitutional matter to support federal judicial power over the case."

I think the federal courts (and by extension Supreme Court) are simply utilizing the powers given them in Article III when they decide to hear cases that have to do with other things than treason or piracy. In other words, the federal courts always had appellate jurisdiction over any and all legal decisions made by the inferior courts. I don't think the language of article III suggests the Framers wanted any legal issue to be purely a state issue. What do you think?

EDIT: I'm not really disagreeing with you per se, I just don't think the Framer's intention was ever for the federal courts to only hear issues related to treason.

Re: Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

onebornfree — Sat, 01 May 2010 00:27:21 GMT

bloomj31:

@Onebornfree,

That's not what Article 3 says at all and the Bill of Rights weren't passed with the Constitution. They were passed in 1791.

So, if what you're talking about was the intention of the Framers, the final document certainly doesn't read that way and the timeline doesn't make sense because the Bill of Rights were passed 14 years after the initial ratification of the Constitution.

Although, in all fairness, it seems the Bill of Rights were initially introduced in Congress in 1789. But that's still two years later.

You seem to be a little mixed up with your dates/timelines [it happens]. The constitution became law on March 4th. , 1789.

The Bill of Rights took effect on November 3rd 1791, not 14 years later.

If my memory serves me well ,there are only two listed federal crimes in the constitution, piracy and treason [against the federal government- not a state government].

As I understand it, the federal court system was charged with trying only those two crimes [and the 9th and 10th amendments were an attempt to ensure that limitation of originating federal jurisdiction to those two crimes].

Any/all federal trials for treason/piracy were to take place in a federal court, before a judge and jury where the evidentiary acquisitional and presentation procedures and requirements [i.e rules of evidence] of the Bill of Rights were enforced by the judge.

If a federal case charging treason or piracy could not be decided within "regular" federal courts, it then went to the Supreme court for a final verdict.

All other "crimes" [i.e. non federal- not treason or piracy], were to be tried in the state where they were committed, by the state courts and laws, [subject to each individual states own bill of rights].

If any state case could not be so decided at the state level, it then went to the Supreme court for a final verdict.

Regards, onebornfree.

Re: Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

bloomj31 — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 23:36:32 GMT

@Onebornfree,

That's not what Article 3 says at all and the Bill of Rights weren't passed with the Constitution. They were passed in 1791.

So, if what you're talking about was the intention of the Framers, the final document certainly doesn't read that way and the timeline doesn't make sense because the Bill of Rights were passed 14 years after the initial ratification of the Constitution.

Although, in all fairness, it seems the Bill of Rights were initially introduced in Congress in 1789. But that's still two years later.

Re: Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

onebornfree — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 23:28:51 GMT

bloomj31:

There are certain privileges afforded the federal government ....... The federal government is also supreme in issues of legislating, judging. That's why the Supreme Court has both original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction.

Yes, I agree, this is the current state of affairs, the reality, but it is certainly not how things were "supposed" to be, in my opinion.

There were originally only two constitutionally listed federal crimes[ if I remember correctly] treason and piracy.

The federal court system was allowed by the constitution to try any/all persons accused of either treason or piracy against the federal government [i.e not even against a state government], and nothing else.

Federal court[s] had no original jurisdictional authority under the Constitution to try persons who were not specifically accused of the crimes of treason or piracy against the federal government.

Any/all federal trials for treason or piracy STILL had to be before a judge and a jury, with all of the trial provisions and strict evidentiary procedures listed in the of the Bill of Rights followed to the letter.

But of course, nobody believes any of that nonsense these days .

Regards, onebornfree.

Re: Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

bloomj31 — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:09:35 GMT

@Dondolee, the only question that I would ask is, if it were legal, where would the President get the authority? Because I know that Presidents are given a lot of power to wage war, but they cannot declare war. They also cannot pass judgment although they can pardon people.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure it's illegal I haven't been able to find anything that makes me think otherwise. You're right, my personal feelings about this are irrelevant.

Re: Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

William — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:35:47 GMT

Anyways, this talk of ethics gets away from the central question imo: "is it legal for a President to issue an order to assassinate US citizens at home or abroad if they've been deemed an "enemy combatant?" If it is, then where does he get this power from?

I just talked to three lawyers (one of them majored in Con Law)), none seemed to think it was anywhere close to legal (none have heard of this news event , and they only recieved the details from me orally). It is still illegal to assasinate heads of state. I will be hanging out with them again tonight, if you have (brief) specific questions you want me to ask them let me know.

If it's not, what action can be taken to stop this and secondarily, do I personally care to see it stopped?

If you care, the best actions I can think to stop things like this: 1) have a white Republican put a hit on an "Arab" US citizen 2) Find a way to make legit accepted media that is pro constitution and anti Democrat 3) maybe uphold second amendment rights?

You personally caring if it should be stopped would have to depend on your specific circumstance and criterea; in the end though, I think this is semi irrelevent.

Re: Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

Clayton — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:41:10 GMT

"is it legal for a President to issue an order to assassinate US citizens at home or abroad if they've been deemed an "enemy combatant?"

Legal by what standard? Statutes legislated by the very same government, authorizing itself to commit murder? I suppose, then, that any murderer can justify his actions by producing an "Executive Order #1093459340 Authorizing John Doe to Commit Homicide on His Own Cognizance". Such an authorization is logically equivalent to the government authorizing itself to commit murder.

As I said above, I can envision a natural order society where assassinations occur. But let's drop the pretense of legality. Assassination is inherently extra-legal and an act of war. It has nothing to do with the law.

Clayton -

Re: Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

onebornfree — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:39:40 GMT

bloomj31:

But if he says they've got enough evidence I trust them.

{Reminiscent of a moderator here who, while discussing 911 declared : "Why would you believe that they are lying? Believing that they are telling the truth is the logical starting ground. Furthermore, all the pieces fit if one believes that they are telling the truth." }

Immortal words indeed.

Regards, onebornfree.