5 ms·

I'll respond to the little bit of your post that isn't a baseless ad hominem. Presidential pardons have legal validity for purposes of righting wrongdoings, tr

by bmelton 13y ago

I'll respond to the little bit of your post that isn't a baseless ad hominem. Presidential pardons have legal validity for purposes of righting wrongdoings, travesties of justice, and for preventing excessive punishment of those unjustly sentenced for political crimes, etc. It's stated intent is to correct injustice, not perpetrate it. I'm not suggesting that every enemy combatant deserves trial -- in an active war, it is ridiculous to suggest that bullets are halted mid-air to conduct court. It is equally naive to suggest that the government is justified in the slaughter of everyone who might ever do us harm. Has it been abused, certainly. Show me a law that hasn't. The difference between pardon and NDAA-type of laws is that the latter has no redeeming characteristic. Its sole purpose is to vest a single person with the power to do literally whatever he wishes, without oversight, without scrutiny, without potential for remediation. There is no justice to be found in its exertion, even when used for noble intent. There are, or at least were, procedures in place that would have prevented such atrocity from occurring, but those procedures were nullified by the NDAA. There is no need for government oversight whatsoever, nor any reason to suggest that whomever happens to be president cannot simply murder whomever he wants under the guise of national interest. I understand that the NDAA and PATRIOT Act weren't created in a bubble, but as you have implored me to "study the history" (which I am well aware of, and don't understand what I might have said to convince you of my ignorance of an era that I was actively involved in), I would implore you to study the documents that led up to our nation's independence. Overwhelmingly, they point to the foulness of this sort of unchecked power, and the founding fathers literally made every effort to ensure that this sort of abuse never came to pass. Whether or not the NDAA or PATRIOT Act is ever used is irrelevant, their very existence negates the tenets of our central foundation of governance. > Sometimes the US government goes too far, but not nearly as often, or nearly as extreme as you keep saying The federal government goes beyond its Constitutional authority literally every single day in this nation. The government exerts federal control in California to arrest the proprietors of legal marijuana dispensaries. They do this by abusing the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes" -- and by abusing the 'among', have defined that to mean that they can control any action within a state, whether or not that action may extend beyond a state's borders. The federal government further abuses the 'Necessary and Proper' clause to extend its powers beyond their section 8 enumerated powers. There are literally countless examples of federal overreach, some of which are gaining ground in recent times, like the overturning of DOMA (Thanks Obama). I'm sorry you don't see them, or don't see them as the overreach I so strongly believe them to be. Either way, I won't further engage in a conversation predicated on your baseless attacks due to a relatively minor disagreement on merits. I would encourage you to learn how to converse with others without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Your views aren't invalid just because I disagree with them, however strongly I might, and you'd do well to acknowledge as much.

diminoten 13y ago
There's so much wrong with what you've written (I've listed some of them below), I honestly don't know what to do. I think I might just have to accept people like you exist, but are in no way capable of impacting me. * Ad hominems would require I disqualify your argument based on who you are. Considering I don't know anything about you, that'd literally be impossible for me to do. * Presidential pardons don't have any stated intents. * The NDAA's sole purpose is not to vest a single person with the power to do literally whatever he wishes, whoever not whomever/ * Documents written over 200 years ago would have to be abstracted to the point of mootness to be relevant in the world we live in today. * The Interstate Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution, so any usage of it is by definition constitutional. * Same goes with the elastic clause. You're just repeating ancient complaints - people have been bitching about what you're complaining about here (abuse of these two clauses) since the dawn of the US, and yet somehow the US is still here today. I'll say what I said before: you're not in power, and that scares you. Your reaction (a natural one) is to lash out at those who are in power, and come up with some kind of conspiratorial explanation of why the world is the way it is. Why? Because at least, if SOMEONE is in charge, then there's a plan, even if that plan is nefarious. To you, and people like you, the idea that events aren't being planned or orchestrated is a terrifying thought. No one in charge?! So you come up with these crackpot, "The US government is out of control!" theories to help sleep at night. But that doesn't make them true. It's no longer an ad hominem to say you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about, as I've demonstrated that fact. It's merely a conclusion based on observation, at this point.
- bmelton 13y ago
  > you're not in power, and that scares you. > Considering I don't know anything about you, that'd literally be impossible for me to do. Let's compare and contrast those, for a moment, shall we? > The Interstate Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution, so any usage of it is by definition constitutional. The Interstate Commerce Clause has a definition, and whatever its definitions where, judicial precedence precludes it from trumping a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Also, just because something is "in" the Constitution does not mean that one can apply any contrived definition of its terms as justification for an action. > people have been bitching about what you're complaining about here (abuse of these two clauses) since the dawn of the US, and yet somehow the US is still here today. False. There is document stare decisis on record indicating a massive shift in these interpretations under FDR's reign. While I can't factually defend against the assertion that I'm rehashing old business (which I'll agree that I am), I can factually assert that it has not in fact 'always been this way', which falsifies your argument. > It's no longer an ad hominem to say you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about, as I've demonstrated that fact. It's merely a conclusion based on observation, at this point. You haven't actually illustrated any points that are supported by fact. You've levied accusations, which you've supported with more accusations, none of which are provable. In short, I shouldn't have responded to this post, but for some odd reason, I took poorly to being referred to as "full of shit" on a subject I've studied a good portion of my life by someone who is literally countering factual arguments with untruth. This is the last topic I'll post on the matter, and I apologize to you and everyone else on HN for not having quit some time ago.

by bmelton 13y ago

diminoten 13y ago

There's so much wrong with what you've written (I've listed some of them below), I honestly don't know what to do. I think I might just have to accept people like you exist, but are in no way capable of impacting me. * Ad hominems would require I disqualify your argument based on who you are. Considering I don't know anything about you, that'd literally be impossible for me to do. * Presidential pardons don't have any stated intents. * The NDAA's sole purpose is not to vest a single person with the power to do literally whatever he wishes, whoever not whomever/ * Documents written over 200 years ago would have to be abstracted to the point of mootness to be relevant in the world we live in today. * The Interstate Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution, so any usage of it is by definition constitutional. * Same goes with the elastic clause. You're just repeating ancient complaints - people have been bitching about what you're complaining about here (abuse of these two clauses) since the dawn of the US, and yet somehow the US is still here today. I'll say what I said before: you're not in power, and that scares you. Your reaction (a natural one) is to lash out at those who are in power, and come up with some kind of conspiratorial explanation of why the world is the way it is. Why? Because at least, if SOMEONE is in charge, then there's a plan, even if that plan is nefarious. To you, and people like you, the idea that events aren't being planned or orchestrated is a terrifying thought. No one in charge?! So you come up with these crackpot, "The US government is out of control!" theories to help sleep at night. But that doesn't make them true. It's no longer an ad hominem to say you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about, as I've demonstrated that fact. It's merely a conclusion based on observation, at this point.

bmelton 13y ago
> you're not in power, and that scares you. > Considering I don't know anything about you, that'd literally be impossible for me to do. Let's compare and contrast those, for a moment, shall we? > The Interstate Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution, so any usage of it is by definition constitutional. The Interstate Commerce Clause has a definition, and whatever its definitions where, judicial precedence precludes it from trumping a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Also, just because something is "in" the Constitution does not mean that one can apply any contrived definition of its terms as justification for an action. > people have been bitching about what you're complaining about here (abuse of these two clauses) since the dawn of the US, and yet somehow the US is still here today. False. There is document stare decisis on record indicating a massive shift in these interpretations under FDR's reign. While I can't factually defend against the assertion that I'm rehashing old business (which I'll agree that I am), I can factually assert that it has not in fact 'always been this way', which falsifies your argument. > It's no longer an ad hominem to say you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about, as I've demonstrated that fact. It's merely a conclusion based on observation, at this point. You haven't actually illustrated any points that are supported by fact. You've levied accusations, which you've supported with more accusations, none of which are provable. In short, I shouldn't have responded to this post, but for some odd reason, I took poorly to being referred to as "full of shit" on a subject I've studied a good portion of my life by someone who is literally countering factual arguments with untruth. This is the last topic I'll post on the matter, and I apologize to you and everyone else on HN for not having quit some time ago.