|
Grex > Coop8 > #75: "..computer networks deserve the highest protection from gummint ntrusion." |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 24 new of 73 responses total. |
dpc
|
|
response 50 of 73:
| 
Jun 15 15:33 UTC 1996 |
Thanx, aaron. It's up to Congress.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 51 of 73:
|
Jun 16 06:28 UTC 1996 |
What Congress can't do is remove the jurisdiction of the SC from
certain cases, as it attempted to do with habeas corpus reform.
|
danr
|
|
response 52 of 73:
|
Jun 16 15:20 UTC 1996 |
re #22: I agree that the government should not be able to outlaw radar
detectors. I do, however, think speed limits are OK.
Drew seemed to imply that the police were coming down on people
just for trying to get fromone place to another faster. That is not the
reason for speed limits; the reason for speed limits is to ensure safety.
|
drew
|
|
response 53 of 73:
|
Jun 16 16:34 UTC 1996 |
All that I am saying is that, with such a large percentage of the population
running afoul of the government, something is wrong with the system. Friction
between government and everyone else should be rare, and at one time, it *was*
rare.
|
scott
|
|
response 54 of 73:
|
Jun 16 18:27 UTC 1996 |
Huh? Not very often, if ever. Govt. is usually a necessary evil.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 55 of 73:
|
Jun 16 22:36 UTC 1996 |
Can the Congress pass laws that are "unconstitutional"? Who decides that
question? Could Congress declare a law beyond the purview of the court for
review? Perhaps. How about the Circuit Courts of Appeal? I am not sure
the entire story is being told here. Obviously the Congress can act in
an unconstitutional manner, but if the USC cannot rule on such actions,
from one quarter or another, then there is no Supreme Court. Strict
construction vs. liberal construction. ?
|
tsty
|
|
response 56 of 73:
|
Jun 17 05:46 UTC 1996 |
the almost overwhelming *concept* behind this particular form of gummint
was to keerp the bastards OFF the back of the ppl. the 'necessary evil'
was LIMITED. lately it seems limitless.
drew is correct.
|
brighn
|
|
response 57 of 73:
|
Jun 17 06:13 UTC 1996 |
Congress can pass whatever laws it pleases. They must then be
struck down by the judicial branch as unconstitutional.
Congress cannot pass a law in such a way that it is protected
from judicial branch review, and Congress generally submits
their bills to their own reviewers to make sure they're not
blaringly unconstitutional.
|
robh
|
|
response 58 of 73:
|
Jun 17 14:18 UTC 1996 |
One wonders what those reviewers said about the CDA.
|
brighn
|
|
response 59 of 73:
|
Jun 17 14:41 UTC 1996 |
This one doubts those reviewers saw it.
|
remmers
|
|
response 60 of 73:
|
Jun 17 17:37 UTC 1996 |
The way the CDA slipped through is politics at its worst.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 61 of 73:
|
Jun 17 19:36 UTC 1996 |
I also suspect that that part of the law saying it must go immediately to
Supreme Court review if challenged, could be struck down by a lower court as
unconstitutional. I totally agree with remmers that the CDA is a
travesty of law.
|
tsty
|
|
response 62 of 73:
|
Jun 17 23:45 UTC 1996 |
.. and remember, Uncle Billy said he signed it and would neeever eeeever
try to enforce it.
Yeh. Right!
|
brighn
|
|
response 63 of 73:
|
Jun 18 04:07 UTC 1996 |
No, he never would enforce it. It's not his job to enforce the laws,
it's Janet Reno's. It's his job to make sure she's enforcing it.
Semantics at it's finest. And Reno most certainly would enforce it.
But at any rate, Billyboy knew the courts would strike it down, and so
it gives him the chance to look good in the liberal eye (for not
enforcing it) and the conservative eye (for signing it). Who suffers?
The taxpayers, who have to pay for a bullshit law to be struck down.
Is the President servign the American public's best interest?
No, of course not.
And he's doing the same thing with the same-sex marriage laws.
|
srw
|
|
response 64 of 73:
|
Jun 18 04:07 UTC 1996 |
Actually I think Uncle Billy said that he would sign it even though he thought
parts of it were not enforceable, or unconstitutional. Remember, the bill
contains a lot more than the CDA, and some of that other stuff is going to
make it possible for more competition in the communications industry.
There is a lot of good in the bill. The CDA just kind of obscured it.
As far as the Justice Department's motivation is concerned, I don't read too
much into that. Enforcing the law is their job.
|
srw
|
|
response 65 of 73:
|
Jun 18 04:08 UTC 1996 |
63 slipped in.
|
tsty
|
|
response 66 of 73:
|
Jun 18 05:06 UTC 1996 |
<sodid the CDA in the Telecomm bill>
|
remmers
|
|
response 67 of 73:
|
Jun 18 13:20 UTC 1996 |
Re #63 and #64: It may be the Justice Department's job to enforce
the law, but is it also their job to defend a law that's under
court challenge, as they did with the CDA?
|
adbarr
|
|
response 68 of 73:
|
Jun 18 21:00 UTC 1996 |
It has been some time since I worried about USC jurisdiction. My 60's
training is a tad out of datRe #67 - there is, or at least there
usedto be some "presumption" of constitutionality for the enactments
of Congress. Thus the Justtice Dept. would be under a first-glance
duty to enforce the law, subject to review by the appropriate court(s).
The members of the Justice Dept. might exercise some discretion, I guess,
depending on political and other pressures? This can quickly lead
to the "following orders" syndrome. Not fun.
|
srw
|
|
response 69 of 73:
|
Jun 19 00:22 UTC 1996 |
The Justice department is made up of lawyers. Lawyers argue the side of the
case that it is their lot to argue. OK it is not so black and white, I admit.
As Arnold points out, they are also politicians, or at least are appointed
by same, and probably do have some discretion.
I'm not sure they have sufficient discretion to say "We don't think this law
is constitutional, so we won't make a case for it". I think it was their job
to make a case to defend the CDA. It doesn't strike me that they made a very
good case for it though, and I don't consider that a bad thing. I certainly
don't want to hang this ugly corpse of a CDA around Clinton or Reno's neck,
as it properly is the property of the right wingers in congress.
|
brighn
|
|
response 70 of 73:
|
Jun 19 01:30 UTC 1996 |
I'm confused as to what we're discussin, exactly.
Is the Justice Department bound to enforce a law that they persoanally
disagree with, and which is under Judicial branch review for constitutionality?
Well, considering how many laws there are out there, the Justice Department
is certainly obliged to prioritize laws, and if there happen to be certain
laws that the JD chooses not to enforce *so long as there are no
complaints*, then so be it. There are plenty of lawsthat are
rarely if ever enforced, most likely the majority of them.
IS the Justice Department bound to pursue the defence for a case
against the US Government, such as the CDA case? I should think so.
Janet Reno is the Attorney General for the United States Government.
If someone sues the government, she defends the Government. That's
what happened. Where's the moral or ethical dilemma?
But I'm confused as to whether we're discussing *enforcing* the CDA,
which Reno is hardly bound to do (especially now), or *defending the CDA
in court, which Reno was certainly bound to do.
|
srw
|
|
response 71 of 73:
|
Jun 19 04:41 UTC 1996 |
We're discussing both, actually. You and I both answered John's question in
#67 affirmatively. It is her job to defend it. If it goes to the supreme
court, she will have to give it another go.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 72 of 73:
|
Jun 19 10:11 UTC 1996 |
And, of course, there is some inherent discretion in how vigorously the
defense is constructed and argued.
|
brighn
|
|
response 73 of 73:
|
Jun 19 15:36 UTC 1996 |
I wonder, though, what happens if the Court rules a mistrial based
on inadequate defence? Does Reno have an assistant that would then
get the case, or does Reno automatically get fired? Hypothetical
here, since she seems to like being vigorous in defending the CDA
(she *will* enforce it, don't be fooled), I'm just wondering aloud.
|