If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:52:52 +0000, Chris H
wrote: You just don't understand. The US is in a WORSE state than the UK because of your bill of rights. What is your basis for this claim? Don't take my response as support for Hemi's ridiculous post. I'm just curious as to why you think that the Bill of Rights is the cause of any problems we might have. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
In message , tony cooper
writes On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:52:52 +0000, Chris H wrote: You just don't understand. The US is in a WORSE state than the UK because of your bill of rights. What is your basis for this claim? Don't take my response as support for Hemi's ridiculous post. I'm just curious as to why you think that the Bill of Rights is the cause of any problems we might have. As I understand it you have everything defined including National Security overriding everything. This is not the case in the UK In the UK the courts have far more latitude to stop the government (assuming some one brings a case) doing lots of things. The Government can not say "national security" and not have to prove it in court. This is why the Home Secretary has to go to court to through people out. The Courts use Case Law and Common Law (common law not being written down) and can interpret far more freely. The Government has lost several "national security" trials because the judges read things differently to the government of the day. Clive Ponting was a case in point. The Jury and the courts refused to convict even though on first look he was guilty of a breach of National Security. Actually he was guilty of severely embarrassing the government .. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:28:36 +0000, Chris H
wrote: In message , tony cooper writes On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:52:52 +0000, Chris H wrote: You just don't understand. The US is in a WORSE state than the UK because of your bill of rights. What is your basis for this claim? Don't take my response as support for Hemi's ridiculous post. I'm just curious as to why you think that the Bill of Rights is the cause of any problems we might have. As I understand it you have everything defined including National Security overriding everything. This is not the case in the UK The Bill of Rights, which is the term used to describe the ten amendments that were made to the proposed Constitution in 1789, was added to provide protection to the citizens. Basically, they spell out the freedoms that were to be guaranteed to the citizens. The amendments were added because it was felt that the Constitution itself, as originally drafted, did not adequately protect the rights of the citizens. The drafters of these ten amendments used the English Bill of Rights of 1689 as a guide to what protections the citizens should have. If you compare our Bill of Rights to your Bill of Rights, you see the basic similarity. I assume that you are familiar with your Bill of Rights since you propose yourself as an expert on the effect of the documents of state on the society of country. The issue of national security is not covered in the Bill of Rights unless you consider Amendment II (the right to maintain a well-regulated militia) to be a national security issue. The effect of that amendment has been more centered on the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms than it has on the establishment of a militia. The various legislation enacted in the name of national security in the 200-plus years since the Constitution was ratified by the states must be held to be in line with the Constitution and the subsequent Amendments. No legislation can abridge the rights given in those documents. There are arguments about whether or not certain legislation does abridge these rights. Often, these take the form of challenges to legislation, and the challenges end up being decided by the Supreme Court. It is the Court's job to determine if the legislation is in accordance with the *intent* of the Constitution and the Amendments. They have to deal with intent because modern-day situations could not have been anticipated by the drafters in the 1700s. In short, some of our laws and practices regarding national security are controversial, but the Bill of Rights is not the cause of the problems. Conversely, the Bill of Rights offers protection. You have a bad habit of going off half-cocked on issues that you have very little - if any - understanding of. Feel free to criticize us, but make some effort to approach accuracy in what you say. You are far too often wide of the mark. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
Chris H wrote:
In message , tony cooper writes On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:52:52 +0000, Chris H wrote: You just don't understand. The US is in a WORSE state than the UK because of your bill of rights. What is your basis for this claim? Don't take my response as support for Hemi's ridiculous post. I'm just curious as to why you think that the Bill of Rights is the cause of any problems we might have. As I understand it you have everything defined including National Security overriding everything. This is not the case in the UK In the UK the courts have far more latitude to stop the government (assuming some one brings a case) doing lots of things. The Government can not say "national security" and not have to prove it in court. This is why the Home Secretary has to go to court to through people out. The Courts use Case Law and Common Law (common law not being written down) and can interpret far more freely. The Government has lost several "national security" trials because the judges read things differently to the government of the day. Clive Ponting was a case in point. The Jury and the courts refused to convict even though on first look he was guilty of a breach of National Security. Actually he was guilty of severely embarrassing the government . You have a very bizarre view of the Bill of Rights and the workings of the US courts. Would you care to provide a quotation from the Constitution which supports you argument that "national security" overrides everything? Or some case law? Where do you get the notion that case law and common law are not used by the US courts? How about support for the notion that the government can say "national security" and not have to prove it in court? Under what US statute do you believe that Clive Ponting could even have been given a ticket, let alone arrested? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
In article , Rich wrote:
Follow-ups set. [snip] Yesterday, the Metropolitan Police claimed that taking photographs of police officers would not - except in 'exceptional circumstances' - be covered by the new offence. And whatever *any* copper says is an "exceptional circumstance" will be supported by his Chief Constable, regardless of the actual circumstance. Welcome to the free world. Justin. -- Justin C, by the sea. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
In message , J. Clarke
writes Under what US statute do you believe that Clive Ponting could even have been given a ticket, let alone arrested? The ones used for Quntanamo? -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
Do we have permission to get rid of the Stimulus bill, also?
-- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. "DRS" wrote in message ... You first. Get rid of the Patriot Act, the warrantless wiretapping and all the rest and then you can talk. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
Do we have permission to get rid of the Stimulus bill, also? Why would you want to get rid of the first intelligent bill introduced in America for 8 years? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
So your stating that the democratic controlled congress during the Bush administration never passed an intelligent bill?
I have no problem believing that! John wikipedia "In the 1996 and 1998 elections, Republicans lost Congressional seats but still retained control of the House and, more narrowly, the Senate. After the 2000 election, the Senate was divided evenly between the parties, with Republicans retaining the right to organize the Senate due to the election of Dick Cheney as Vice President and ex officio presiding officer of the Senate. The Senate shifted to control by the Democrats (though they technically were the plurality party as they were one short of a majority) after GOP senator Jim Jeffords changed party registration to "Independent" in June 2001, but later returned to Republican control after the November 2002 elections. In the 2006 elections, Democrats won both the House of Representatives (233 Democrats, 202 Republicans) and the Senate (49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents caucusing with the Democrats) as well as the majority of state governorships (28-22). "DRS" wrote in message ... "Stormin Mormon" wrote in message Do we have permission to get rid of the Stimulus bill, also? Why would you want to get rid of the first intelligent bill introduced in America for 8 years? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
Hence the proliferation of spell checkers.
Now if I could only get the grandma checker to kick in. 8) John "Twibil" wrote in message ... On Feb 20, 10:44 am, "jaf" wrote: So your stating that the democratic controlled congress during the Bush administration never passed an intelligent bill? I have no problem believing that! And we have no problem believing that you never learned in grade school what the contraction "you're" means (it means "you are") as opposed to "your", meaning "belonging to you". BTW: while you're looking things up, check out procedural stalling tactics and Presidential veto powers. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture | Mike Henley | Digital Photography | 872 | January 30th 05 12:45 AM |
A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture | Mike Henley | 35mm Photo Equipment | 234 | January 7th 05 12:13 PM |
A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | January 4th 05 10:02 PM |
A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | January 4th 05 01:34 AM |