Karl And Me
I had a little dust-up with Karl Rove Thursday night. We have a slightly different view of the Constitution. I happen to concur with the Supreme Court decision upholding Habeas Corpus, giving prisoners held in U. S. custody the right to challenge their detention. BushCo put them in Gitmo in the first place hoping to circumvent the law. One of many 5-4 decisions this term, this is a reminder that our Constitutional rights are hanging by a thread. The name of that thread is Anthony Kennedy.
The rights conferred by our Constitution apply not only to citizens, but also to “persons”, as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This was affirmed in the 1886 case of Yick Wo V. Hopkins:
…that equal protection and security should be given to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their personal and civil rights; that all persons should be equally entitled to pursue their happiness, and acquire and enjoy property; that they should have like access to the courts of the country for the protection of their persons and property, the prevention and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts; that no impediment should be interposed to the pursuits of any one, except as applied to the same pursuits by others under like circumstances; that no greater burdens should be laid upon one than are laid upon others in the same calling and condition; and that, in the administration of criminal justice, no different or higher punishment should be imposed upon [118 U.S. 356, 368] one than such as is prescribed to all for like offenses…
I’m amazed that so-called conservatives are angered about a decision that upholds a basic human right, a core value of our nation. These are the same people who say they want to appont justices who will offer strict interpretations of the Constitution.
Our other major bone of contention is that Congress never passed a war declaration. Rove claims the use of force resolution is the same thing. That is contradicted by former Attorney General Alberto Gonazales, as indicated when the Center for Constitutional Rights challenged the Bush administration for violating Habeas Corpus at Guantamo.
GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you’re possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we’re not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.
Here is my little chat with Karl Rove.
Rove(mp3)
Karl Rove, Karl Rove, KARL ROVE!
How does he have a job at Fox News? Alan, it must make you feel horrible being in the same room with such a worm like him. I guess Hannity isn’t that great either.
Why does anyone listen to his opinion? He has a lot of responsibility in warping the President’s view of the world.
1) Surrounding the President with a bunch of yes men
2) The Valerie Plame fiasco
3) Attorney General fiasco
4) The picture in Air Force One over New Orleans during Katrina
5) This idea of a permanent Republican majority (how did that go?)
This man is all that is wrong with politics. He epitomizes sleaze. I hope he gets involved with the McCain campaign. It would be the best thing that could happen to Obama. Absolute slime. This guy makes Glen Beck seem alright…
July 4th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Oh yeah! Almost forgot. His defiance of Congress. What the hell are they waiting for they have the power to arrest and try him. They just haven’t used that power for a long time because the DOJ handles these legal matters. That was before the DOJ was corrupted. Corrupted with help from KARL ROVE!!!
It would be funny if it wasn’t so fucking horrifying…
July 4th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I agree with you, Alan, which is rare enough. But I wish you, and the rest of the Left would attack the “Authorization for the Use of Force”, itself, as un-Constitutional.
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act is an old, hairy wart on the political landscape, but clearly too many people have figured out how to make money off of the intended and unintended consequences to stop it.
While morphing into a full-on conservative, you can also snuff the entitlements, skewered artistically here:
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=3012
and chart-istically here:
http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts
Go, Alan!
July 4th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Dear Allen,
When “persons” is used within the Constitution it is in reference to its citizens, and only its citizens. This is just another example of how liberals twist such documents to further the liberal agenda. Those who commit crimes against American citizens, it’s military, or it’s government who are not American citizens should be held accountable within it’s military courts.
I would also mention that our nations forfathers fled England because of the heavy burden of taxation. Christian churches were so heavily taxed they could not function within the communities and serve the poor, hungry, homeless and others in need. The documents these men produced were meant to protect our institutions of faith from future burdens of taxation. However, liberals consider this to be a “separation of church and state”. Again, another liberal twist of our documents to further the liberal agenda.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
The Conservative,
The constitution doesn’t SAY citizen.
how do you know they “meant” only citizens?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Sounds to me that they meant to protect the people from state religion.
“Again, another conservative twist of our documents to further the conservative agenda.”
July 4th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Scared people can’t spell “Habius Corpus.” This like a Conservative and understand why you lost this debate. President Bush took these “Evildoers” from the “Battlefield.” That protects our troops from harm and America from danger. That’s a good thing. If President Bush is forced by the Courts to let them go, then that’s more danger for our troops. The argument was lost at step one. Too many secrets. How do we know where these Gitmo guys came from? We destroyed the Constitution and allowed Bush to act like a King. The collection of these guys is unconstitutional. The enemy here is anyone who took advantage of the weakness of the Constitution and took action to shatter it! I don’t give a damn about the Gitmo Guys. I give a damn about America and the Constitution! Arguing anything less than protecting and defending the Constitution argues for Bin Laden! You won’t win any argument in America pulling for him and hiding behind Habius. To a conservative, this sounds like the skirt you are wearing attacking Bush. America doesn’t give a damn about Gitmo, but we do care about the Consititution and “No More Kings.” Bush became a King by smashing the Constitution. As a King he did exactly what he wanted. Now arguing this it’s easy to see, “That ain’t right.” How do we know these guys came from the battlefield? Conservatives and Liberals will protect and defend the Constitution. Argue the King shattered it and we will unite and oppose the King.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
I said, “Think like a conservative!” Is someone playing games with this blog like Gretawire?
July 4th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Habeus, Cecil.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
How about “habeas” corpus, Fury.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Mr. Rove is a viper without principle and an enemy to everything that America stands for.
July 5th, 2008 at 2:05 am
I dont like the prisoner situation no better than anyone else but the cnstitution [in my opinion] does not apply in cuba to protect/prosecute individuals.
If it did Fidel castro would be doing life in supermax colorado.
just my 2 cents
July 5th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Nice job with Rove, Colmes. You exposed his contempt for the constitutional rights that helped to make America the great nation that it is.
Btw, when Rove is on air, he is labeled as FOX News Contributor and Former Bush Advisor. The label of Informal McCain Campaign Advisor should also be thrown into the mix so the viewers are given full disclosure.
And to Rove…honor the legal subpoena issued to you, go testify, do it on the record and under oath.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/03/house-judiciary-committee-rove-is-not-immune-from-testifying/
July 5th, 2008 at 10:03 am
OldLefty,
Which country of citizens were these documents written for OldLefty? Nowhere in any document is a “separation of church and state” mentioned. These documents were written to protect citizens from government interference and abuse. However, it’s people like you who refuse to believe in the “higher authority of creation” mentioned in the documents themselves. I have a copy of the document you refer to. It’s too bad you don’t understand the first sentence OldLefty. Maybe a nightclass in American history is in order along with a good old bible study?
July 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
The Conservative,
– Where in the constitution is God named?
– While they wrote the constitution in America, how do you assume that the Basic rights of habeas corpus, applies only to citizens?
– They don’t specify that, because they wanted this to be a nation of law, not a nation where a ruler could grab a noncitizen off the steet and imprison them forever with NO accountability to ANYONE! That is what they hated about the first King George.
And by the way,I ALSO could say that;” I have a copy of the document you refer to. It’s too bad you don’t understand the first sentence, The Conservative , Maybe a nightclass in American history is in order.”
And also, many Americans don’t believe in the “good old bible”, anymore than you believe in the The Bhagavad Gita, or the Koran.
Thomas Jefferson rewrote the bible: The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson’s effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the clergy.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:51 am
OldLefty,
First, it specifically says it is The Constitution Of The United States, therefore it applies only to the United States and it’s citizens. Second, prior to Article 1, the introduction mentions securing blessings of liberty. Blessings come only from God, and it is signed on (”the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, etc.”). The Declaration of Independence states “Laws of Nature and of Natures God”, it also states “that they are endowed by their Creator”, and is sighned “with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence”. These are references to God and examples of their Christian faith. Finally, the additional articles of The Bill Of Rights were written by the Conventions of the States “expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers” as they and their institutions of Christian faith suffered under English rulers. Therefore OldLefty, regardless of your “feelings or belief” in God The Creator, this nation was founded, and its laws were grounded upon the Christian faith for and only it’s citizens. No other country or the citizens of those counties. God The Creator is the divine authority, and has “Devine Providence” over all people (including you) and creation (nature) whether you like it or not. All souls belong to Him. You might give that some consideration OldLefty.
July 6th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Got to hand it to “the conservative”. He has all the answers and is damned sure of their application to all of us US Citizens, even those who believe his opinions are terribly WRONG! (as he applies them). The louder you proclaim you have the sole hold on the truth, the more I chuckle at your brazeness and lack of respect for the opinions of others. But I guess that defines “conservative”, doesn’t it?
July 6th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
OldLefty: I love your posts. Thank-you. Your arguments are always reasonable and well thought out. it’s very refreshing.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
The Conservative said,
First, it specifically says it is The Constitution Of The United States, therefore it applies only to the United States and it’s citizens.
That is a non sequitur and implies that they did not care about the potential abuse of ANYONE but citizens?
They carried Habeus Corpus from the Magna Carta, and believed that EVERYONE had the right to face their accusers.
The Declaration of Independence is just that. It is NOT the constitution.
Year of our Lord, and Blessing are phrases. Agnostics will say “Bless You”. So what?
James Madison was against government giving money to churches, because he feared that government would taint religion.
Thomas Jefferson agreed for different reasons: He feared religion would taint government.
Many of the founders were Christians, but many were Deists: The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
Deists include:
Ethan Allen
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Thomas Paine
George Washington
As for….” God The Creator is the divine authority, and has “Devine Providence” over all people (including you) and creation (nature) whether you like it or not. All souls belong to Him.”….
That is YOUR opinion.
As sure as you are of it, There are Hindus, Buddists and Moslims, Jews and others who are EQUALLY as sure of their believe.
Just because you state it as a fact instead of a belief, doesn’t make it true. You might give that some consideration The Conservative.
July 6th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
What The Conservative ignores is that Jefferson wasn’t a Christian-he was a deist. The references in the DOI were to his god, not Yahweh.
Claiming the ‘date’ makes it a ‘christian’ based Constitution is ridiculous; but that’s normal for those of his type.
‘blessings of liberty’ is self explanatory.
July 6th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
sky,
Thank you,
You havn’t written on this post
(I’m going out now, so I won’t see it if you do.)
July 6th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
spyglass10,
I could care less what you think of me or my opinions.
I threw it in OldLefty’s face and he cries like a baby, and Boogieman must be a middle school dropout. No wait……….all of you must be.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
OldLefty thinks our countrys founders wrote these documents for Iraq, Iran, Bagdad, and all the other countries and their citizens around the world, OR they were written for and only for the benefit of our elected officials and their body of government. And I could care less about the GODS of Hindus, Buddhists, or Muslims.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:47 pm