Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

On the federal/state issue, there is no real dispute that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Due Process Clause apply to the federal government.

OK, I found this a surreal response. What federal/state issue was I talking about? And, uh, I'm a corporate lawyer, so take my constitutional thinking with a grain of salt, but didn't the 14th amendment make the Due Process Clause apply to the STATES, not the federal government.

Also, to move up the argument pyramid and directly rebut your point, Bicycles don't ride Fish.

Otherwise, perhaps Scalia was making your point, and it's a little hard to tell from the news story, but I doubt it. Over more than two hundred years, the Court has had many opportunities to create exceptions to the principle of the Due Process Clause, and I'm sure Scalia knows them far better than I do, but it beggars disbelief to think that the Founders, familiar as they were with the way people had been tortured by the King of England over the previous centuries, would think that they were giving that power to a chief executive who simply claimed a serious, exigent need.

The point I was making is that the constitution constrains the government with regard to how it operates at home. It may constrain the government with regard to how it operates abroad in dealing with US citizens. But, time and time again (think Chinese exclusion cases, Haitian boat people, etc., etc.) the court has ruled that the constitution doesn't apply and there is no due process right or constitutional rights for non-US citizens dealing with the US government abroad.

It's not that there is an exception to the due process clause. It's that the constitution doesn't even apply here.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Okay - so I've been roundly ridiculed for thinking America is better -- in its conduct, values, and aspirations -- than al Qaeda or ISIS. I get it.

So, for those who believe the opposite -- since we're just the same, why should we give a shit about torturing people suspected of participating in and supporting 9/11 and similar attacks? Why shouldn't morality be relative -- we can improve ourselves after those people are dead?

Sidd (a little tired of the sanctimony) Finch.

I agreed with you. I still agree with you.

I just put your perfectly valid point in context.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Okay - so I've been roundly ridiculed for thinking America is better -- in its conduct, values, and aspirations -- than al Qaeda or ISIS. I get it.

So, for those who believe the opposite -- since we're just the same, why should we give a shit about torturing people suspected of participating in and supporting 9/11 and similar attacks? Why shouldn't morality be relative -- we can improve ourselves after those people are dead?

Sidd (a little tired of the sanctimony) Finch.

Apparently you didn't read the article or see it on Facebook. I was quoting Andrea Tantaros, a Fox News anchor whose reporting of the release of the CIA Report was as follows:

“The United States of America is awesome -- we are awesome," the Fox News host said on "Outnumbered." "The reason they want to have this discussion is not to show how awesome we are. This administration wants to have this discussion to show us how we’re not awesome.”

Here's Steven Colbert's reaction.

Now, that being said and done, to move on to your question. I'm not saying we're as bad as al-Qaeda or IS. But, if we're taking people from their homes, after which they are never seen again, and torturing them to get information that we know before we break the first kneecap they may or may not have, we lose any claim to be standing up for the rights, safety, or dignity of people anywhere we go in. We're just another asshole coming around wanting a little taste.

Next, it's happening to American citizens, too. There's this Constitution thing. If it only counts when we want it to count, then it's just another tool of whoever has the power. It protects only those who are rich and powerful enough never to wind up in the basement of some police station, or Quonset hut at Ft. Benning. I guess the rest of us are just fucked.

What makes America awesome is our commitment to the due process of law, our belief that certain rights are not the state's to give, but are never in the province of the state to begin with. Every time someone says: "well, I guess if it's justified, then it's okay" to ignore due process, we knock one brick out of the wall. Who's going to make that decision, that in this case it's okay to violate everything this nation was founded on? Want to give that power to Ted Cruz?

Finally, think about it from the other side. Your father is taken away in handcuffs, a bag hooding his head, and he is never seen or heard from again. Some informant in the village had a grudge. How is he different than someone who lost a relative on 9/11?

I believe we are exceptional. But the thing that makes us exceptional is we have rules, laws, they call them, and we follow them. That, and the fact that we alone claim to be ready to defend those rights wherever they are being ignored. When we cease being exceptional, we are no longer exceptional. We're just a bunch of killers, liars, and thieves, like everybody else.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

What makes it so clear? Due Process and Cruel and Unusual Punishment are either God-given rights or they are not. The Brown and Ferguson cases (actually, non-cases) are all the argument we need on racism and intolerance.

.

Did you miss "not?"

Also, there is no God

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

OK, I found this a surreal response. What federal/state issue was I talking about? And, uh, I'm a corporate lawyer, so take my constitutional thinking with a grain of salt, but didn't the 14th amendment make the Due Process Clause apply to the STATES, not the federal government.

Also, to move up the argument pyramid and directly rebut your point, Bicycles don't ride Fish.



The point I was making is that the constitution constrains the government with regard to how it operates at home. It may constrain the government with regard to how it operates abroad in dealing with US citizens. But, time and time again (think Chinese exclusion cases, Haitian boat people, etc., etc.) the court has ruled that the constitution doesn't apply and there is no due process right or constitutional rights for non-US citizens dealing with the US government abroad.

It's not that there is an exception to the due process clause. It's that the constitution doesn't even apply here.

The Court is full of shit.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

Did you miss "not?"

Also, there is no God

I did miss the "not." My bad.

And if there isn't any God, then who is this "Creator" by whom man was endowed with certain inalienable rights?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

The Court is full of shit.

Well, yes, but the thing about being the Court is that your word is law even when you are full of shit.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Well, yes, but the thing about being the Court is that your word is law even when you are full of shit.

And nobody can fire you. so you can say any old crazy shit you want.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I did miss the "not." My bad.

And if there isn't any God, then who is this "Creator" by whom man was endowed with certain inalienable rights?

Wonk, since you are the creator of serial responses, I am taking the liberty of using your post to respond to a few others. I hope you don't mind.

1. Thanks to Sebby for the suggestion of the cask strength Makers. A few fingers with one large ice cube makes a conversation with one of my more retrograde clients a mellow one. Instead of arguing about Ferguson, we had a civil discussion about oil shale and came to an agreement on our mutual regard for The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence. What's so funny bout peace, love, and understanding, indeed, Declan.

2. I'm with Sidd. We are better than our enemies. I can't believe that this needs to be said. I also believe Not Ironically in American Exceptionalism. I get that our history shows that we have mostly failed to live up to the Enlightenment ideals that our system was founded upon, and I also get that our history shows that torture has been a tool in our arsenal always - from tarring and feathering Tories to scalping Indians to water boarding Filipinos to hooking battery cables to the Vietcong and on and on. But until the War on Terror, it has never been given official approval or public support. You may find this to be a distinction without a difference, but I don't. I'll expand on this point later, maybe.

3. I have no problem applying a different standard between how citizens and non-citizens are treated. This doesn't mean I am ok with mistreatment of anyone. It does mean that I think that our constitutional rights don't apply to non-citizens. However, human rights are universal and God-given and we have a moral (the whole God thing) and legal (per treaties and the UN charter) obligation to see that our government respects them. Simple silly examples to illustrate: no Miranda rights but no rectal feeding.

4. I am sickened, truly, by what I am learning. I am really hoping that this all leads to some fundamental change. I'm hoping that the revulsion to this revelations is widespread enough to channel into a push for change.

5. Hooray to Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi for calling out the Citigroup Free Money Rider to the Cromnibus. One can reasonably disagree about the merits of the Dodd Frank rollback on swaps (it probably doesn't add as much risk as people are fearing; it certainly allows Citi to make more money on swaps because of how the ratings affect the spread on those deals - take a look at John Carney's recent article in the WSJ for an explanation), but the way that section made it into the bill is telling.

6. Carry on.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Wonk, since you are the creator of serial responses, I am taking the liberty of using your post to respond to a few others. I hope you don't mind.


2. I'm with Sidd. We are better than our enemies. I can't believe that this needs to be said. I also believe Not Ironically in American Exceptionalism. I get that our history shows that we have mostly failed to live up to the Enlightenment ideals that our system was founded upon, and I also get that our history shows that torture has been a tool in our arsenal always - from tarring and feathering Tories to scalping Indians to water boarding Filipinos to hooking battery cables to the Vietcong and on and on. But until the War on Terror, it has never been given official approval or public support. You may find this to be a distinction without a difference, but I don't. I'll expand on this point later, maybe.


6. Carry on.

I'm always okay with using my post as a jumping off point. You gotta come in somewhere.

I don't think we disagree in substance about very much. Except for this. I also believe in American Exceptionalism (to a point), and I also understand that there are a lot of precedents here. Here's my beef.

Every time we stray from those bedrock principles, we leave behind a scar. It's kind of like the heart and the brain, that way, liberty, once the tissue dies, it doesn't regenerate. At some point, there builds up enough scar tissue that signals start getting crossed, those crossed signals create chaos and we find that the people watching are of the mind that they can watch us, too. They don't realize, or don't care' that we're a nation of NIMBY's. (For God's sake, taking some poor schmuck to Turkey or Qatar to beat lies out of him is cool?)

I don't see some paranoid spook in Virginia drawing that line if there is too much slippage on that "due process" bullshit all us ungrateful motherfuckers are whining about all the time, so we can start looking at other "threats" internal or external. After all, they are just as capable as the ones we are explicitly allowed to torture and spy on.

Trust me. You don't want to be around when things go out of rhythm.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I'm always okay with using my post as a jumping off point. You gotta come in somewhere.

I don't think we disagree in substance about very much. Except for this. I also believe in American Exceptionalism (to a point), and I also understand that there are a lot of precedents here. Here's my beef.

Every time we stray from those bedrock principles, we leave behind a scar. It's kind of like the heart and the brain, that way, liberty, once the tissue dies, it doesn't regenerate. At some point, there builds up enough scar tissue that signals start getting crossed, those crossed signals create chaos and we find that the people watching are of the mind that they can watch us, too. They don't realize, or don't care' that we're a nation of NIMBY's. (For God's sake, taking some poor schmuck to Turkey or Qatar to beat lies out of him is cool?)

I don't see some paranoid spook in Virginia drawing that line if there is too much slippage on that "due process" bullshit all us ungrateful motherfuckers are whining about all the time, so we can start looking at other "threats" internal or external. After all, they are just as capable as the ones we are explicitly allowed to torture and spy on.

Trust me. You don't want to be around when things go out of rhythm.

But do you believe in Canadian Exceptionalism? How about Chinese Exceptionalism? Texan Exceptionalism? And what about the all-important Vatican Exceptionalism?

What the fuck does exceptionalism even mean? It's either tautological (apples are special! they're not oranges! And oranges are special, too, they're not apples!) or xenophobic (apples are special! they're not icky oranges! Oranges, well, they're not special at all.), isn't it?

People throw around this term like it's the password to Aladdin's cave or something. Yet it seems to get used in endlessly stupid or meaningless ways. Come on, guys, we're better than that, aren't we?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But do you believe in Canadian Exceptionalism? How about Chinese Exceptionalism? Texan Exceptionalism? And what about the all-important Vatican Exceptionalism?

What the fuck does exceptionalism even mean? It's either tautological (apples are special! they're not oranges! And oranges are special, too, they're not apples!) or xenophobic (apples are special! they're not icky oranges! Oranges, well, they're not special at all.), isn't it?

People throw around this term like it's the password to Aladdin's cave or something. Yet it seems to get used in endlessly stupid or meaningless ways. Come on, guys, we're better than that, aren't we?

The term, as it is used by many, myself included, is a reference to the fact that we alone live in a democratically-run nation, with a government that is answerable to the people. We are the only nation that has had the same government for over 200 years, a feat made even more impressive by the fact that we are one of the youngest nations.

The biggest problem with the phrase is that people too often use it to mean that we as people are better. That's not true, The phrase is meaningful, and largely correct, when it is used to mean that our system, designed by us, based upon a common set of values and principles is better than any other.

I most definitely do not think it makes us better, though, if we are willing to throw those liberties away in order to provide the illusion of security. I also don't believe that we are better than any place else if we don't extend those same protections universally. Who fucking cares if nobody else does? That would be truly exceptional.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

The term, as it is used by many, myself included, is a reference to the fact that we alone live in a democratically-run nation, with a government that is answerable to the people. We are the only nation that has had the same government for over 200 years, a feat made even more impressive by the fact that we are one of the youngest nations.

The biggest problem with the phrase is that people too often use it to mean that we as people are better. That's not true, The phrase is meaningful, and largely correct, when it is used to mean that our system, designed by us, based upon a common set of values and principles is better than any other.

I most definitely do not think it makes us better, though, if we are willing to throw those liberties away in order to provide the illusion of security. I also don't believe that we are better than any place else if we don't extend those same protections universally. Who fucking cares if nobody else does? That would be truly exceptional.

I think you mean "the arguably same government run under the same generally democratic constitution for 200 years other than a brief period when half the country broke apart and set up a separate confederacy", right? Throw enough adjectives in there and we'll have something truly unique eventually.

We have a unique history in the rise of Democracy, it is true, but so does France, the first country to adopt universal male suffrage, several decades before we got to universal white male suffrage. Lots of other countries also have made unique contributions to the growth of democracy, from Greece to England to little old Iceland with their Althing going back over a millennium. Does a written constitution beat universal suffrage? Is it more special than abolishing slavery?

Europe, with many countries crammed into a small space, has never been a place where it was easy to have countries that didn't have major shifts in government resulting from war, but if you don't like the Brits with their monarchy sitting on top of the parliament, the Swiss arguably have a government that has had strong democratic elements from the beginning and has been continuous for about 700 years, but for a brief invasion (the French) and a brief civil war (just like us!). Our 200 years is a pittance there. Of course, we have a constitution, while they just have a bunch of charters.

Our constitution does have a unique role in the development of constitutional government, too, but, of course, constitutional government has not worked out more often than it has, and it may be that our relative isolation from hostile states has more to do with our constitution's survival than anything else. Many a Brit would argue that an unwritten constitution interpreted by a continuously functioning parliament is a preferable means to a long and stable democratic government.

I don't have anything against us considering our history exceptional - it is - but I have trouble with us thinking that our government is somehow the end-game for all, that is, that our system is prescriptive in the annals of democracy. And I have trouble with us not seeing and being open to all the contributions from other countries, the way our founders were.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think you mean "the arguably same government run under the same generally democratic constitution for 200 years other than a brief period when half the country broke apart and set up a separate confederacy", right? Throw enough adjectives in there and we'll have something truly unique eventually.

We have a unique history in the rise of Democracy, it is true, but so does France, the first country to adopt universal male suffrage, several decades before we got to universal white male suffrage. Lots of other countries also have made unique contributions to the growth of democracy, from Greece to England to little old Iceland with their Althing going back over a millennium. Does a written constitution beat universal suffrage? Is it more special than abolishing slavery?

Europe, with many countries crammed into a small space, has never been a place where it was easy to have countries that didn't have major shifts in government resulting from war, but if you don't like the Brits with their monarchy sitting on top of the parliament, the Swiss arguably have a government that has had strong democratic elements from the beginning and has been continuous for about 700 years, but for a brief invasion (the French) and a brief civil war (just like us!). Our 200 years is a pittance there. Of course, we have a constitution, while they just have a bunch of charters.

Our constitution does have a unique role in the development of constitutional government, too, but, of course, constitutional government has not worked out more often than it has, and it may be that our relative isolation from hostile states has more to do with our constitution's survival than anything else. Many a Brit would argue that an unwritten constitution interpreted by a continuously functioning parliament is a preferable means to a long and stable democratic government.

I don't have anything against us considering our history exceptional - it is - but I have trouble with us thinking that our government is somehow the end-game for all, that is, that our system is prescriptive in the annals of democracy. And I have trouble with us not seeing and being open to all the contributions from other countries, the way our founders were.

I didn't claim we are the be-all and end-all. I said that we have a unique and exceptional history. Our democracy arose after we expelled a foreign power and was constructed from the beginning as a government of laws, not men. We aren't perfect. Who is? But we are like Australia in terms of political evolution. Our distance allowed us to build our institutions, for better or worse, without interference.

But, if you're right, and we're like everybody else....

Then we can withdraw from all those foreign pissing matches where our direct interests are not at stake. Fuck 'em. After all, we're no better than they are. Why should we make sacrifices for people thousands of miles away?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I did miss the "not." My bad.

And if there isn't any God, then who is this "Creator" by whom man was endowed with certain inalienable rights?

A figment of the collective imagination.