Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
He likely was a POS but like other American PsOS, he still gets judicial review. And, the other two US citizens were denied that right as well. One of them a 16 yo.These Americans were not in a war zone nor was there any imminent threat from them. So, the POTUS gets no excuse for summary executions. That is not his jurisdiction, rather it is that of the courts.
Your wrong there, they were actively recruiting, training, aiding terrorist and were fugitives from justice. The one supposed Imam was in direct communication with the Major at FT Hood before he started shooting. He committed many overt acts of treason witness by many more than two people as required by the Constitution, by putting out his internet videos giving aid and comfort to our enemies and by fleeing our jurisdiction he made himself a clear and present danger in both foreign theaters and the homeland.
Anyway, I will do my best not to piss off Obama so that I don't get on his list.
The fact that you believe this only confirms that Obama has indeed deeply divided the country....where there were actually Americans who are against the Constitution. And, not just one, but many, many Americans who are against the Constitution.
Never did I think I would see that. Stunning.
That day arrived some 30 to 40 years ago, with the advent of the social right and Christian fundamentalism. During that time weve seen Americans going against the Constitution by trying to destroy privacy rights, trying to destroy the First Amendment by seeking to conjoin church and State, and opposing the Constitution with regard to due process rights concerning immigration.
And sadly today we have Americans against the Constitution by trying to deny same-sex couples their equal protection right to marry.
Since the OP did not deign to tell us just what she is talking about specifically, one has to assume it is the 2nd Amendment...which last time I checked said something about being "well regulated".
Not to mention some of our founding fathers were into the idea of tearing up the constitution every nineteen years and writing a new one. I personally think it's kind of stupid to try to govern the 21st century world with an 18th century document but I do appreciate and respect it's place in our history.
Wrong, Jake.Dead incorrect. The non combatant was urging war on America, tried to hide, and so got fried. No law violated at all. Even Bush's fascist judges would write a memo for the justification of this type of killing. And I sure don't hear either McCain or Kerry complaining.
These Americans were not in a war zone nor was there any imminent threat from them. So, the POTUS gets no excuse for summary executions. That is not his jurisdiction, rather it is that of the courts.Americans actively waging war on the US from foreign soil, I got no problem with that. He made himself an enemy combatant and got what he deserved.
Obama considers himself a modern-day Lincoln, so that works.
US District Judge John Bates dismissed a lawsuit filed by the father of Anwar al-Awlaki, a dual US-Yemen citizen, who is reportedly on a US kill list of terrorism suspects. His ruling clears the way for the Obama administration to conduct the targeted killing without judicial oversight.
The suit asked the judge to issue an injunction prohibiting the Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Department from intentionally killing Mr. Awlaki unless the government could first demonstrate that he posed an imminent threat to life or safety, and that no nonlethal means were available to meet the threat.
Judge Bates said the suit must be dismissed under the political question doctrine, which requires judges to step aside in issues that are best resolved by the elected, political branches of government.
He also ruled that Awlakis father, Nasser, lacked the necessary legal standing to litigate the case on his sons behalf in a US court.
The court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion that there are circumstances in which the Executives unilateral decision to kill a US citizen overseas is constitutionally committed to the political branches and judicially unreviewable, Bates wrote in his 83-page decision. But this case squarely presents such a circumstance.
He added that the political question doctrine does not contain any carve-out cases involving the constitutional rights of US citizens.
Judge dismisses bid to remove Anwar al-Awlaki from US 'kill list' - CSMonitor.com
III. The Political Question Doctrine
Defendants argue that even if plaintiff has standing to bring his constitutional claims or
states a cognizable claim under the ATS, his claims should still be dismissed because they raise non-justiciable political questions. Like standing, the political question doctrine is an aspect of "the concept of justiciability, which expresses the jurisdictional limitations imposed on the federal courts by the 'case or controversy' requirement of Article III of the Constitution." Schlesinger, 418 U.S. at 215. The political question doctrine "is 'essentially a function of the separation of powers,'" El-Shifa, 607 F.3d at 840 (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962)), and "'excludes from judicial review those controversies which revolve around policy choices and value determinations constitutionally committed for resolution to the halls of Congress or the confines of the Executive Branch.'" Id. (quoting Japan Whaling Ass'n v. Am.Cetacean Soc'y, 478 U.S. 221, 230 (1986)).
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/1436.pdf
Since the OP did not deign to tell us just what she is talking about specifically, one has to assume it is the 2nd Amendment...which last time I checked said something about being "well regulated".
The constitution says something about bowel movements ???
In the spirit of this holiday season, I have given you a rep for using the word "deign" on Christmas eve. For some strange reason it has always been one of my favorite words and I try to use it in a sentence at least once each day and twice on Christmas eve. To my knowledge, this is the first time the word has ever appeared on this forum which is truly a cause of celebration.
And no, I am not being facetious. In truth, the words we use tell others much about ourselves.
Merry Christmas and stay regular.
Did you also neg him for lacking the ability to properly read a sentence.
The ACLU currently has six suits in the Federal Courts.The extra-judicial killing issue will likely remain unresolved:
US District Judge John Bates dismissed a lawsuit filed by the father of Anwar al-Awlaki, a dual US-Yemen citizen, who is reportedly on a US “kill list” of terrorism suspects. His ruling clears the way for the Obama administration to conduct the targeted killing – without judicial oversight.
The suit asked the judge to issue an injunction prohibiting the Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Department from intentionally killing Mr. Awlaki unless the government could first demonstrate that he posed an imminent threat to life or safety, and that no nonlethal means were available to meet the threat.
Judge Bates said the suit must be dismissed under the political question doctrine, which requires judges to step aside in issues that are best resolved by the elected, political branches of government.
He also ruled that Awlaki’s father, Nasser, lacked the necessary legal standing to litigate the case on his son’s behalf in a US court.
“The court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion – that there are circumstances in which the Executive’s unilateral decision to kill a US citizen overseas is constitutionally committed to the political branches and judicially unreviewable,” Bates wrote in his 83-page decision. “But this case squarely presents such a circumstance.”
He added that the political question doctrine “does not contain any ‘carve-out’ cases involving the constitutional rights of US citizens.”
Judge dismisses bid to remove Anwar al-Awlaki from US 'kill list' - CSMonitor.com
III. The Political Question Doctrine
Defendants argue that even if plaintiff has standing to bring his constitutional claims or
states a cognizable claim under the ATS, his claims should still be dismissed because they raise non-justiciable political questions. Like standing, the political question doctrine is an aspect of "the concept of justiciability, which expresses the jurisdictional limitations imposed on the federal courts by the 'case or controversy' requirement of Article III of the Constitution." Schlesinger, 418 U.S. at 215. The political question doctrine "is 'essentially a function of the separation of powers,'" El-Shifa, 607 F.3d at 840 (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962)), and "'excludes from judicial review those controversies which revolve around policy choices and value determinations constitutionally committed for resolution to the halls of Congress or the confines of the Executive Branch.'" Id. (quoting Japan Whaling Ass'n v. Am.Cetacean Soc'y, 478 U.S. 221, 230 (1986)).
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/1436.pdf
The Federal courts will always refuse to venture into the political realm, where if the people believe a member of Congress or the Chief Executive has acted in a manner offensive to the Constitution, that issue should be resolved by the voters, not by the judiciary. See also: Dellums v. Bush, 752 F. Supp. 1141 (1990).
...where there were actually Americans who are against the Constitution. And, not just one, but many, many Americans who are against the Constitution.
Never did I think I would see that. Stunning.
OK, Si, so you are another total fruitcake. Too bad.
Obama has kill lists of US citizens without any judicial review. Likely because he is so insecured he needs this ultimate power grab of killing US citizens. I bet he gets a hard on every time he adds another US citizen to his kill list.
And, I bet he prematurely ejaculates every time he ignores FOIA subpoenas. I can understand why he does, though, being the murderer and civil rights violator that he is.
The only way he is going to get out of this is to flee the jurisdiction. I'm OK with that.
True. But I've recently seen folks flat out saying that two of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are "obsolete". Not just one poster, either....where there were actually Americans who are against the Constitution. And, not just one, but many, many Americans who are against the Constitution.
Never did I think I would see that. Stunning.
What are you talking about?
American leftist have been openly against it since the 20's. And the religious right has been against it since the 80's.
I don't know if I would call it balls, rather just plain evil arrogance and limp-dicked power grab...execution of US citizens without judicial review.Obama considers himself a modern-day Lincoln, so that works.
He's far from that. He doesn't have the balls.
