On 10/28/14 6:42 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/28/2014 5:44 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:41:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:
To suggest that any President can effectively negate any part of the
Constitution or Bill of Rights is ludicrous.
\
JFK/LBJ/RFK had no problem negating the 4th amendment, Lincoln ignored
habeas corpus and FDR stomped all over about half of the bill of
rights in various things he did. (Interning the japs, illegal
surveillance, secrecy acts, military tribunals for civilians etc)
Of course they can.
As the article states ... the Supreme Court told Harry Truman that
executive orders can apply to *enforcing* laws but not *making* laws.
"Habeas Corpus" is not in the Bill of Rights. It *is* referred to in
the Constitution however (Article 1 Section 9). But if you read the
Article, it specifically says that "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas
Corpus shall not be suspended, *unless when in Cases of Rebellion or
Invasion the public Safety may require it*.
Lincoln (and Congress) determined it was required in the Civil War.
FDR's actions in WWII was also a temporary suspension of Habeas Corpus
and for the same technical reasons. It's unlikely any President would
get away with it now-a-days however.
The last I knew the 4th Amendment was alive and well.
If those affected by the actions of JFK/LBJ/RFK had filed suit, they
would have won.. or should have. I am not sure as to the specifics of
what you refer to.
Greg is relying on his "Libertarian" readings.
--
A vote for any Republican is a vote AGAINST:
Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Fair Pay, Food Stamps, Clean
Air and Water, Modest Gun Regulations, Public Schools, Rebuilding
Infrastructure and Good Jobs, Women's Rights, Veterans’ Rights, LGBT
Rights, and, of course, Your Right to Vote.