4 ms·

I'm aware that the court has interpreted it that way. That doesn't make it any less wrong. To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitut

by ef4 13y ago

I'm aware that the court has interpreted it that way. That doesn't make it any less wrong. To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. - Thomas Jefferson,1820 I will also note that the data in question was within the United States, where all property, whether owned by foreigners or not, is protected from unlawful search and seizure.

tptacek 13y ago
What warrant did Jefferson serve on the Barbary Pirates?
- markdown 13y ago
  <insert name of fallacy here>
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Fallacy fallacy?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  The First Barbary War was a declared war -- declared first by the Pasha of Tripoli against the US and explicitly recognized as a state of war in several acts of Congress subsequently -- so its hardly relevant.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Well, "recognized as" hardly amounts to a declaration of war. Congress did authorize use of military force though, but technically only against Tripoli, not Algiers or Tunis. So the question remains open in general.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Well, "recognized as" hardly amounts to a declaration of war. Congress has the power to declare war, but (a) that power doesn't require any particular language, and any authorization of military action, as contained in the various statutes Congress adopted after the Tripoli declared war, can have the effect of a declaration of war (and a declaration of war may be limited or conditional), and (b) Congressional declaration of war is sufficient to create war, but not necessary; an enemy declaring, or initiating without declaring, war is also sufficient to create war. See, among other cases, Bas v. Tingy, 4 U.S. 37 (1800); The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635 (1862); The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1871).
- eksith 13y ago
  This is misdirection and you know it. By that same token, if we were around at the time, I could also point to the slaves. The reckless interpretation of the U.S. bill of rights is already precariously close to violating the Geneva Conventions (on many cases, it probably has already been violated. I.E. Guantanamo Bay). The idea that you're somehow exempt from what is commonly regarded as decent and fair treatment of another human being based on a narrow (and arguable) technicality is appalling.
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    Jefferson would have had each state be its own absolute arbiter of the Constitution, and free to ignore the Constitution if the state felt like doing so. Ron Paul arguably holds the same views now (with his various attempts to make state actions immune from federal judicial review). For both of them, history furnishes examples of why -- even if we hold that the Supreme Court and federal judicial review was a bad idea -- this is also a bad idea.
- momerath 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
scythe 13y ago
In context, your quote does not make sense. Without judicial review, which Jefferson was criticizing, there would be -nothing- to stop bad laws from being implemented. Abortion would still be illegal, for example. Marbury v. Madison created a remarkable legal instrument: the Court can strike down a law, but it cannot write a new one (deplorable Costa Rican abortion jurisprudence notwithstanding). It is a check on government power that errs on the side of liberty. However, relying on the Court to strike down every bad law is like relying on the compiler to catch logic errors. A sufficiently intelligent compiler can perform some remarkable analysis of code, but that is not the function of a compiler. We continue to elect bad Congressmen who pass bad laws signed by a bad President, and then we have the gall to blame the Supreme Court. It's ridiculous. If you want to make a difference in politics, you have to actually get involved in politics, at the party and primary level, because that is just how shit gets done. It is critical to elect good candidates, not just to throw out bad ones.

by ef4 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

What warrant did Jefferson serve on the Barbary Pirates?

markdown 13y ago
<insert name of fallacy here>
- mpyne 13y ago
  Fallacy fallacy?
dragonwriter 13y ago
The First Barbary War was a declared war -- declared first by the Pasha of Tripoli against the US and explicitly recognized as a state of war in several acts of Congress subsequently -- so its hardly relevant.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Well, "recognized as" hardly amounts to a declaration of war. Congress did authorize use of military force though, but technically only against Tripoli, not Algiers or Tunis. So the question remains open in general.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Well, "recognized as" hardly amounts to a declaration of war. Congress has the power to declare war, but (a) that power doesn't require any particular language, and any authorization of military action, as contained in the various statutes Congress adopted after the Tripoli declared war, can have the effect of a declaration of war (and a declaration of war may be limited or conditional), and (b) Congressional declaration of war is sufficient to create war, but not necessary; an enemy declaring, or initiating without declaring, war is also sufficient to create war. See, among other cases, Bas v. Tingy, 4 U.S. 37 (1800); The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635 (1862); The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1871).
eksith 13y ago
This is misdirection and you know it. By that same token, if we were around at the time, I could also point to the slaves. The reckless interpretation of the U.S. bill of rights is already precariously close to violating the Geneva Conventions (on many cases, it probably has already been violated. I.E. Guantanamo Bay). The idea that you're somehow exempt from what is commonly regarded as decent and fair treatment of another human being based on a narrow (and arguable) technicality is appalling.
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  Jefferson would have had each state be its own absolute arbiter of the Constitution, and free to ignore the Constitution if the state felt like doing so. Ron Paul arguably holds the same views now (with his various attempts to make state actions immune from federal judicial review). For both of them, history furnishes examples of why -- even if we hold that the Supreme Court and federal judicial review was a bad idea -- this is also a bad idea.
momerath 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

scythe 13y ago

In context, your quote does not make sense. Without judicial review, which Jefferson was criticizing, there would be -nothing- to stop bad laws from being implemented. Abortion would still be illegal, for example. Marbury v. Madison created a remarkable legal instrument: the Court can strike down a law, but it cannot write a new one (deplorable Costa Rican abortion jurisprudence notwithstanding). It is a check on government power that errs on the side of liberty. However, relying on the Court to strike down every bad law is like relying on the compiler to catch logic errors. A sufficiently intelligent compiler can perform some remarkable analysis of code, but that is not the function of a compiler. We continue to elect bad Congressmen who pass bad laws signed by a bad President, and then we have the gall to blame the Supreme Court. It's ridiculous. If you want to make a difference in politics, you have to actually get involved in politics, at the party and primary level, because that is just how shit gets done. It is critical to elect good candidates, not just to throw out bad ones.