Merlyn_LeRoy

So why did you indicate it would've been OK to assassinate Hitler, but not George III? What's your distinction? And do you consider military snipers dishonorable? They purposely try to kill officers, and I doubt they'd hesitate if the commander in chief of the armed forces happened to show up in their sights. For that matter, if it's not honorable to kill the leader of an opposing army, at what level is it OK? Generals? Captains? And why?

Well, your original question was pretty vague; for the supreme court to rule that the first amendment no longer applies anywhere, it would be as if it didn't exist. And since most infringements on the first amendment are due to laws passed by the legislature and enforced by the executive, I wouldn't hold out much hope for those branches, since THOSE branches are the ones committing the violation(s) -- the court ruling would just be upholding the actions of the other two branches. And I don't think it's more "noble" to kill footsoldiers but "play nice" to the leadership -- why? They're the ones most responsible. I don't agree with your position that leaders in a war shouldn't be targeted. It's simply bad tactics. Washington probably had no realistic way to attempt an attack on George III, but there was an attempt to kidnap or kill Washington by Tories. You think war's a game or something?

Well, I think freedom of speech, press, and religion is sometimes worth fighting for, and even sometimes killing for, and I don't have the same deference for not killing leaders that you have (in fact, I hold them much more responsible than the footsoldiers).

"The US has a policy against assasinating foreign heads of states." Not during a war (or, what we've had since Korea, undeclared wars); the attack on Iraq started with an attempted decapitation attack to take out Saddam Hussein. And your hypothetical case where the US supreme court says the first amendment no longer applies would mean there's no freedom of speech, press, or religion. I don't consider armed revolt at such a point to be radical. By the way, you still haven't answered my question if it would have been OK to assassinate Hitler, even though he was elected. Is it somehow OK to kill footsoldiers but not leaders? Are you critical of the German resistance for attempting to kill Hitler on July 20, 1944?

Well TheScout, perhaps you could answer my question from one of the earlier threads that was closed, as long as historical discussions are ok -- would it have been terrorism to assassinate Hitler? He was elected, after all. And I'm not sure if I understand why leadership (at least during a war) is not considered a valid target, but footsoldiers are. Is it ok to kill rank & file grunts, but not their leaders? Decapitation attacks have always had a place in wars. Lincoln's assassination isn't an instance of that because the war was over.

scouter.com seemed to have been down for a large part of Sunday, maybe they got hacked. Exploit-YIMCAM is a new trojan, only a couple of weeks old: http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_142468.htm

Even when it's hypothetically speaking about what circumstances people would revolt and kill tyrants? Is it OK to say Hitler should have been assassinated, even though he was properly elected? Is it never proper to even speculate under what dire circumstances it might be appropriate to kill oppressive leaders? I think even politicians would be interested to know if & when a significant fraction of the population might resort to violence, if only for self-preservation. Or to quote the sentence uz2bnowl referred to: But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. As an aside, I think the title "president for life" suggests an obvious solution on how to change the leadership, so I don't know why some dictators are so fond of it.

Even if your assertion is true that the city council thought this agreement ended the problem (and I don't think the city council thought so, thought the CoL seems to have), the city still has the ability to end the lease by giving a one-year's notice.

The 2004 nondiscrimination statement contained the usual meaningless promise that the CoL council wouldn't engage in "illegal discrimination." The city council soon realized that this made the agreement meaningless, since the BSA can discriminate against gays and atheists legally.

If the first amendment is being ignored, everyone's. To turn the question around, is there anything that would cause any of you to take up arms against a tyrannical government? Or is any properly elected government OK, like when Hitler was legally elected?

Not at all; terrorism is using fear, usually by targeting civilians. I'm advocating removing tyrannical government officials.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants" -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Col. Wm. S. Smith, Nov. 13, 1787 If government officials decide I don't have rights, that's when I decide it's time to kill them. This country wasn't founded just by writing petitions, you know. Are none of you willing to kill to combat a tyrannical government?

Well, you might not like my realpolitic solution, but you still haven't answered my question. Why does the SC issue rulings if they can just be ignored? What's the point? Is it like a movie review?

TheScout, I *did* answer your question; the SC has said in a number of cases that the first amendment doesn't apply. If the SC (for no apparent reason) decided the first amendment doesn't apply anywhere, I don't much care what the other branches of government do, And no, that isn't a flippant answer. Now, would you answer my question? Why does the SC issue rulings if, in your view, they can be ignored? Are they like movie reviewers? (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

The supreme court has ruled many times that the first amendment doesn't apply in certain situations, and yes, I expect congress and the president to follow those rulings and not ignore them. You didn't really answer my previous question; if supreme court rulings can simply be ignored, why make them? What use are they? Are they like movie reviews, something totally optional? And why, in your imaginary legal system, does the supreme court have less power than the other two branches? 1) executive branch enforces laws & makes gov't appointments, PLUS decides what laws are constitutional 2) legislative branch passes laws PLUS decides what laws are constitutional 3) judicial branch decides what laws are constitutional(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

TheScout, your position makes no sense; if congress and the president can simply ignore what the supreme court decides, why should the supreme court bother to do anything? What does it *mean* if every SC decision can just be ignored? I find it very unlikely that the SC would declare that the first amendment didn't apply any more, but when the court DOES make a ruling that a lot of people disagree with, usually congress tries to pass laws that the SC will find constitutional. For example, the RFRA after the peyote decision, or when the court ruled that cities could take your home using eminent domain if it increased tax revenue.

TheScout, what happens if: 1) the SC says law X is unconstitutional 2) congress and/or the president think it is constitutional Is (2) a case where congress and/or the president think the SC has acted unconstitutionally? If so, does that mean congress and/or the president can decide that the SC acted unconstitutionally in declaring law X unconstitutional, and thus proceed as if the SC said law X was constitutional? If (2) is not such a case, could you give an example of an action of the supreme court that you consider unconstitutional.

TheScout: what, in your view, should happen if congress passes a law that the supreme court considers unconstitutional? I think the law becomes null & void, by the way.

TheScout writes: Jackson is mostly regarded as one of the finest presidents. Certainly not by the Cherokee. And I find it very illuminating that you would applaud Jackson's aopcryphal remark that the state of Georgia could ignore the sovereignty of the Cherokee nation. I guess you only care about some people's rights to govern themselves.

OGE writes: how long before the Executive Branch says to the Legislature I dont care how many votes you have this is the way it will be? Bush has already done this. Here's a report from yesterday about the US General Accounting Office: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070618/D8PRGG0G0.html ... The limited GAO study examined signing statements concerning 19 provisions in fiscal year 2006 spending bills. It found that in six of those cases the provisions were not executed as written. In one case the Pentagon did not include separate budget justification documents explaining how the Iraq War funding was to be spent in its 2007 budget request. In another, the Federal Emergency Management Agency did not submit a proposal and spending plan for housing, as Congress directed.

OGE, the supreme court hasn't had a chance to do anything with the jamboree lawsuit; the 7th circuit said the lawsuit lacked standing. And it wouldn't make any sense for SADD to sponsor a discriminatory Venture Crew, since they are opposed to discrimination on the basis of religion & sexual orientation. MADD says they don't discriminate on the basis of religion, so a similar argument there.

Ed. You can't learn things. (OGE, The words deleted don't take away from the context of the message) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Beavah, I don't consider atheists who are defending their civil rights to be "sticking their fingers in the eyes of the majority"; at best, it's sticking their fingers in the eyes of bigots who don't think atheists should have the same rights as anyone else.

You'll notice that the real lawyers advising the school are in agreement with my views and not yours, TheScout. I see no point in building imaginary legal systems; I prefer to deal with the actual one my country has.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Ed, you may have noticed that there's no "right to a fair trial" law, or a "separation of powers" law, but lawyers refer to them, too; it's verbal shorthand. Sorry, public schools can't run a private club that requires a religious oath.