register |  login
› LONGMONT
Loading Ad
Visit Other Hubs:
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Tower
Blog
Blog Entry 171 of 192 The Subversive Liberal
"If by a "liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "liberal." – President John F. Kennedy...................... Some people find me and that sentiment subversive. I'm here to set the record straight and offer the real typical liberal point of view. Some call it subversive, I call it patriotic.

Blog Url: http://denver.yourhub.com/~BingVanGorden

It's the Constitution stupid part 2
Contributed by: Bing Van Gorden   on 6/19/2008

By a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court ruled again against Bush administration policies involving legal rights of detainees being held in Guantanomo Bay. Conservative critics call the decision disastrous, and deviously liberal. The dissenting opinion written by Antonin Scalia was typical rhetoric regarding war with islamo-fascists and national security blah blah blah. None of it based in the Constitution he is charged with interpreting in these matters. This decision illustrates beautifully why liberals are right, and conservatives are wrong.

"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."

Let's consider the facts of the matter. This case was about whether or not individuals being held by the United States have the right to challenge in a court, their imprisonment. It's called habeas corpus and it is only suspended under the most dire of circumstances. Abraham Lincoln suspended it during the Civil War, was reprimanded by the Supreme Court, then granted that power by Congress shortly thereafter as the situation called for it. We have threats to this country. But we do not have rebellion nor invasion. Habeas corpus isn't something to be fooled with. It's a cornerstone of a just society. We as a country do not, rather should not, be in the business of snatching people and holding them indefinitely. That's what the soviets did, and what the Chinese do. We treated Nazis better than the individuals being held now in Guantanomo.

Conservatives want us to believe our government has the right guys and we should afford them the benefit of the doubt. We should consider it patriotic to trust them, not question them and to not show any moral outrage at the potential innocent individuals rights being trampled on. Because we are at war. They must all be guilty and who really cares anyway as long as it saves lives?

Here's the rub. Hundreds have been freed from Guantanomo without any charges, without any trial. An acknowledgment that some of them were actually innocent. And an acknowledgment our government was willing to free some of them because their home governments requested it, despite their still being a national security threat. And lastly, the most obvious and glaring fault in the logic of the right wing nut case on the teevee and radio is: if their guilty, get proof, charge them, try them, jail them and potentially execute them.

This recent smack down of Bush is the latest of 3 rulings expressing the same sentiment. People in our custody are to be held under our rule of law. That we are bound Constitutionally to do so. Liberals respect it despite the threat of terrorism, conservatives abhor it in fear of terrorism. This is not a new phenomenon.

Liberals point to the Constitution. Conservatives run from it. When judges rule against their rigid ideology they cry "activist judge!" As is evidenced by recent court rulings in the states of California and Massachusetts recognizing the rights of homosexuals to marry. In both cases the Constitution was interpreted correctly. There was nothing that prevented gay marriage and equal protection provided. It would have been activist to re-write the law to deny a group of people rights others had protected under the law. Just as it would be activist of the Supreme Court to re-write the Constitution to allow the suspension of Habeas Corpus or to grant the government the right to mistreat prisoners according to our own Constitution or treaties.

Conservatives claim if they don't get their way, they are being oppressed. It is their moral code and only theirs that is permissible and they are willing to try and change the law of the land to enact it. Liberals recognize the law as protecting the rest of us from that oppressive and unoriginal moral code if we don't want to adhere to it. We believe the Constitution makes the government obligated to ensure equal protection and opportunity. We believe the Constitution not only prevents government from encroaching on our liberties but also obligates our governments to ensure them.


SUBMIT COMMENT

Rate the above blog



Current Rating
Based on 6 user ratings.

Talk Back : submit comments to the blog

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.

< BACK | NEXT >
Showing 1-10 of 12 comments
Submitted By: Michael Rule
posted on 6/24/2008 @ 9:48:35 PM
Rated Blog Entry
Aye me buckos, and ye can walk the plank yerself, if ye be half the mate I think ye is.....
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 6/23/2008 @ 9:15:57 AM
(Not Rated)
Samantha, since your hung up on this morality thing I have to ask do you find the follwoing things to be "moral." Torture? Imprisoning innocent people without allowing them to challenge their detention or even contacting their families? Id it moral to discriminate and treat as second class citizens other Americans based on sexual orientation? Is it moral to cram one religion down the throats of others? Because I find all of those to be immoral as I do many policies of the current conservative administration. Just curious.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 6/23/2008 @ 9:08:17 AM
(Not Rated)
Samantha, show me the part int he Consituttion or our laws where morality is mentioned. Laws protect liberty. There's a good reason for that. Once it was considered moral to keep and own slaves. To dissalow blacks form marrying whites. It was considered immoral to allow women to vote. I'm not saying we as individuals don't have morals but we don't adopt one set. Frankly I find your morals to be abhorrent. Treaing peple as second class citizens may work for you but thats not what the cosntitution states nor what our country was founded on. Whose morals do we adopt? Yours? I don't think so. I find discrimination rooted in religious bigotry to be quite immoral and certainly not a blueprint for society to follow.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Samantha Mirabal
posted on 6/22/2008 @ 11:24:47 PM
Rated Blog Entry
First, I never bet and people that have to use profanity to express themselves is sad. Now to the moral codes. Every country has set a standard for "moral code" through the laws it enforces. Not all moral codes are accepted by all Countries. If there was a country that allowed for every moral code, chaos would be the outcome. In fact because there are people who believe there is no such thing as any act being "wrong" there would be no law in such a country.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Ralph Dosser
posted on 6/21/2008 @ 12:07:12 PM
Rated Blog Entry
Giving rights to the accused - citizens and foreigners alike - isn't just a hoop to jump through. It is essential to making sure that the system works. Without that the innocent WILL get punished and the guilty WILL walk free. Because there has been no real review of its actions, this US military system has imprisoned and tortured innocent people. That is simply unacceptable to anyone who truly loves America and wants to see justice done. And anyone who respects and reveres the US military should be appalled that politicians have corrupted it in this way.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 6/21/2008 @ 11:34:31 AM
(Not Rated)
Yes. I would argue even further than the SCOTUS ruling that we as American citizens behave according to the principles laid out in the Constitution when dealing with anybody at any time. It's not simply a legal document to me. But SCOTUS ruled that if we are holding someone, anyone, in our facilities, we must abide by the Constitution. Now these detainees do not have all the rights of a US citizen. But regardless, are you aware the wording of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 provides no protection for American citizens? You or I, if the President deems so necessary can whisk us away. With no habeas corpus rights, no obligation of the government to disclose where you are. It may be unlikely to happen, but it shouldn't even be considered! It's a good system. Get proof, pick the guy up and give them fair access to the courts. Did you see the bit I wrote about the hundreds of innocent people we have let out of G'itmo? That hurts our cause.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Gail Kirkegaard
posted on 6/20/2008 @ 4:35:08 PM
Rated Blog Entry
But Bing, that's OUR constitution, for US citizens. It's not a world constitution. You think it should apply to everybody?
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 6/20/2008 @ 11:22:44 AM
(Not Rated)
Samantha, I hav ethis to say in response; "All moral codes should be acceptable" You bet your ass. As long as they don't infringe on the rights of others it is Constitutionaly protected. That wasn't my central point but it is true that the Constitution protects individual liberty. Don't like it, move to Singapore or just deal with the fact you live in a free country where some peopl's morals conflict with your own. You call it chaos, most people call it freedom.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Michael Rule
posted on 6/20/2008 @ 6:39:11 AM
Rated Blog Entry
Good points, Bing
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Ralph Dosser
posted on 6/19/2008 @ 8:07:28 PM
Rated Blog Entry
It's astonishing how fast so-called conservatives turn away from the law when it suits their ends; in this case, being willing to throw out Habeus Corpus because they're terrified of dark people with beards. It's also jaw-dropping that the conservative movement - dominated by war profiteers, criminals and sexual hypocrites - has the brass cojones to call itself "moral" in any way. The good news is they're dancing their ghost dance. Reason and true morality are starting to reassert themselves, and we're well on our way to waking up from this "conservative" nightmare.
[Report as objectionable]
Showing 1-10 of 12 comments
< BACK | NEXT >
CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION

Bing Van Gorden

Longmont , CO

Bing Van Gorden has posted 192 blog entries and 808 comments since joining on 3/28/2007. Bing Van Gorden 's average blog rating is 3.67.
SAVE AND SHARE THIS BLOG ENTRY
BLOG ENTRY RSS FEEDS
BLOG LIST
WANT TO WRITE FOR YOURHUB.COM?
Want to see the stories you write and the photos you shoot featured in the YourHub.com Thursday print section available all over the Front Range and with home subscriptions of the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post? All you have to do is  register,  then post a story or column, start a blog or tell everyonewhat events are happening in town. We will print the best stories, columns, event listings, photos and blog entries in our print sections.

ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

Loading Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

This YourHub.com community is produced by The Denver Newspaper Agency
Web Development and Channel Analytics provided by Indigio

terms of use //  privacy policy
the staff //  advertise //  help & faq
buy photos