You have been a participant in the biggest interdimensional cross rip since the Tunguska blast of 1909!
Disappointed me no end when I learned the blast actually happened in 1908. Damn you, Dr. Stantz, and damn me for believing in you!!
Jonathan ,'Touched'
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
You have been a participant in the biggest interdimensional cross rip since the Tunguska blast of 1909!
Disappointed me no end when I learned the blast actually happened in 1908. Damn you, Dr. Stantz, and damn me for believing in you!!
I'm going to go home before I fall asleep sitting and the other students find me here like this in the morning. Bye! Have fun storming the Natter!
I hope I'll get to post with y'all soon again.
Bye!
Electrical resonance - I'm realizing that while there's plenty of science behind electrical engineering, it's still pretty fucking magical in a way.
Gonzales says the Constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus
Well, they already suspended it so that's kind of moot.
From what I understand, they only suspended habeas corpus for non-citizens who are considered enemy combatants. But still, if the Constitution doesn't, in their reading, guarantee habeas corpus, there's nothing to stop them from drafting a law that suspends it for, say, citizens charged with treason or some such.
But we have a lot of smart lawyers here. Is there solid legal support for the claim that a Constitutional prohibition against suspending or abridging a right is not, in fact, a Constitutional guarantee of such a right?
I think he is trying to suggest that since habeas corpus is not constitutionally mandated, Congress has the power to suspend. But no Supreme Court in the land would ever agree with that reasoning.
ETA: xpost with Burrell.
2d edit to respond to Burrell: off the top of my head I don't know. But I know that when Miranda was passed, Congress passed a little-known statute that overturned it. Even C.J. Rehnquist, who publicly stated that Miranda was not constitutionally mandated, changed his mind when this law came up for review, in Dickerson. The Court does not necessarily willingly allow Congress to limit its power in this way and I cannot imagine they would interpret the Constitution otherwise.
I think it was the Daily Show that did something about Gonzales's statement, wasn't it with Jason Jones? I'll have to look it up online when I get home.
Thanks for the insent, Kalshane. Somehow I managed to misplace my phone. At least it wasn't until after I left one message and talked to the other person of the unsettling calls. This one will be a cakewalk in comparison.
You're welcome. Hope it's helpful.