Not that this is on topic, but there.
You must be British because you actually get my humour. I can only imagine Iran trying to nuke Israel now. They send a missile over the skys of Iraq. Whistling down. Down into Tel Aviv. And then. In a white flash. An explosion. But not of nuclear materials. Oh no. It’s something much more deadly. It’s an explosion of foreign humanitarians with tent poles and slingshots. The Israelis would freak.
I suppose it is inevitable that supporters of the state , would, through their “pre-review world-view bias” [just like a certain part of the anatomy-everybody’s got one!] , interpret this famous clause as investing the Supreme Court with ultimate power of “interpretation”, but evidently it did not, and does not, at least as far as the actual writers of the document in question were concerned.
This should be clearly evident in the historical record, which shows that the 1st. congress at that time felt a specific need to pass the Judiciary Act [1789] , of which article 25 gave that specific power [i.e. ultimate judicial review/interpretation by the Supreme court] ; basically an effective “end run” around the still-under- construction Bill of Rights - effectively nullifying the Bill of Rights before it had even left congress or passed ratification by the individual states.
It seems to me that if the constitution had actually given such original ultimate judicial authority to the supreme court, as all state lovers contend, the actual authors/architects of it [most of whom made up the 1st congress] would never have felt the need to draft another law that specifically gave such authority.
See: Nullifying the Bill of Rights-The 1789 Judiciary Act Scam
regards, onebornfree.
The fact of the matter is that the Constitution is just a piece of paper, it requires interpretation. And the courts found that they had the power of review in 1803 and there really hasn’t been any serious contentions otherwise. The Supreme Court does have the power of judicial review whether the founders wanted it to or not.
The Constitution, like all contracts, is negotiable and open to interpretation but I actually think that the contention that the Constitution is a limited government document is false. If your really read the document, it’s obvious that the founders left a lot of holes open, this is one of them. If they didn’t want the Supreme Court to have final jurisdiction over what was and was not constitutional, they should’ve said so. In the same way, they should’ve been more specific about the money situation.
EDIT: Like I said before, I think it’s ridiculous to try and interpret the document purely based on the original intent of the founders. I think it makes more sense to interpret it based on the language. Unlike the wording in Article 1 for the Congress, there are no explicit limits on the Judiciary in Article 3.
No nation would ever attack a nuclear-armed nation. So all that Israel’s has to fear is bankruptcy (and its pretty near actually).
Iran just wants to have nukes so that it won’t be bullied anymore by anyone, and they use the demonization of Israel to keep the population obedient just as the Israeli government uses the concept that everyone is hell-bent on killing Jews in to feed money to the state.
bloom, are you aware of the fact that legal scholars, not just libertarian kooks like me, try to base law on reason and not solely on who has the guns? I asked you what you fault Hitler for as a Jew, and all you said was “killing my people”. Is there anything you find wrong with his policies besides that your people weren’t “the ones with the guns”.
I take the silence and you (?) deleting your posts supporting Hitler’s policies as “a technical aspect of law” or whatever, that you’ve realized the ridiculousness of your position.
Fine. If you never invoke the first, fifth or any other ammendment in court when the police harasses you, we statelovers will be content.
The Constitution is not a contract in any meaningful sense. That is long discredited bs. Otherwise you are right.
have you guys read:
Makes you wonder whether it is really working, even on people on this forum.
"have you guys read:
Makes you wonder whether it is really working, even on people on this forum."
The author is wrong about a shift in public opinion, at least so far.
"Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters believe pro-Palestinian activists on the Gaza-bound aid ships raided by Israeli forces are to blame for the deaths that resulted in the high-profile incident.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 19% of voters think the Israelis are to blame. Thirty-two percent (32%) more are not sure."
Do you honestly believe this? Think game theory.
“Do you honestly believe this? Think game theory.”
Yes and I’m not the only one.
"The Security Council voted today to impose a fourth round of United Nations sanctions against Iran, while demanding that the country suspend its enrichment activities and peacefully resolve outstanding concerns over the nature of its nuclear programme…
The latest text – resolution 1929 – builds on previous sanctions by deciding that Iran shall not acquire an interest in any commercial activity in another State involving uranium mining, production or use of nuclear materials and technology.
The Council also decided that all States shall prevent the supply, sale or transfer to Iran of battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems. It also asks States to take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer to Iran of technology or technical assistance related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.
In addition, the resolution contains provisions to help block Iran’s use of the international financial system, particularly its banks when they may be used to fund proliferation and nuclear activities.
Among other elements, the resolution also alerts States to the potential link between Iran’s energy sector revenues and energy-related technologies and proliferation, and establishes a UN panel of experts to help monitor and enforce sanctions implementation."
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34970&Cr=iran&Cr1=
So you believe that Iran would nuke Israel, kill millions of Palestinians, and destroy Jerusalem? Let’s ignore, for the moment, the fact that it would necessarily mean the end of Iran as the west would surely retaliate. Come on bloom, you don’t really believe this garbage. Also, stop appealing to bullshit. I don’t give a shit about the U.N. security council.
“I don’t give a shit about the U.N. security council.”
Ok.
The UN Security Council pounding for its nuclear program? Why on earth would the global cartel of nuke nations ever want to ban entry into the business?
Man, I really hope gets nukes. Everybody would chill out in the ME.
The problem with game theory is that it defines and assumes rationality in such a way that may not all be that realistic, and especially for governments run by Democracies and Dictators. I’m not saying that pressing the trigger first is a piece of cake, but let’s not forget that we are relying on collectivist systems with inherently persevere incentives to protect us from such potential irrational behavior.
Dictators are very rational when we take into account their personal interest and that alone.
Sure, if you believe that ‘states’ act ‘rationally’ you might find Milosevic’s decision to take punishment for 50 days irrational, but seen from his personal interest, he lost nothing when the country was sent back to the dark ages, but started fearing when voices of discontent, fueled by the NATO bombing, started to mount.
So focusing on personal interest gets almost normalizes the thing. And since rulers are the first to die in a nuclear exchange, than I would bet my house that no significant exchange shall happen in this century.
Rulers with nuclear weapons and particular beliefs about the afterlife should perhaps be a concern…
How exactly do you figure that? Have you heard of underground bunkers?
Also, those sitting in submarines with nuclear war heads ready to launch won’t be signing off their lives either.
And now we see you hoist your true colors. Everything you’ve stated now about being morally indifferent, and the law is what counts just went out the window. Because now its obvious you have a bias.
Btw, with regards to what is legal, wouldn’t it be more accurate for you to say, might makes right? Do you really care what is legal? What would be your verdict when law in one country is in conflict with another? I think you just happen to being using what is legal in this instance because you know you can’t justify what israel did on any other grounds.
However you can’t always use legal justification, Victor Ostrovsky illuminated on a majority of those were illegal under israeli law.
As for this business about “the real enemy”… to be honest this entire conflict has nothing to do with me, and I really looking forward to seeing Israel stands on its own two feet without my tax dollars. You guys got an A-Bomb,you don’t need the U.S. I’m sure without the U.S. Israels foreign policy would become much more civilized,restrained and domicile.