quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

You miss the point.

You are making assumptions, since you have no facts at all about the so-called event.

Arpig is pointing out that we do not know what the proposal was, exactly: there are no facts. However, in general, any such proposal could have easily been legal, if if followed the two paths he mentioned.

He doesn't claim that they did. He doesn't know, and admits it.

You, on the other hand, claim divine knowledge of not only what this so-called proposal actually said, but what was in the hearts and minds of all the people (supposedly) involved in it.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

What, exactly, is the legal definition of a "black-letter law"? You mean it's a law that must be followed? What are all the other laws called?

And what would the US Supreme Court say about your "black letter" laws?

Black Letter Law" Defined Definition of "Black Letter Law" ... The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon On; * Black Letter Law *

BLACK LETTER LAW - The principles of law which are generally known and free from doubt or dispute.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:


To you "competent legal authority" is anything that agrees with your position. In the rest of the world, it means the legal entity which has jurisdiction and authority to rule on the subject. For example, the US Supreme Court is the most superior competent legal authority involving issues of the Constitution in the US.

Ok, let's go with that.

Based on your definition, the lawyers advising Bush were not competent legal authorities as they were not judges on any court with the authority to rule on the issue. 

So by your own interpretation the advice he was given on a range of issues was not competent.

Which seems to be already being proven.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I've given you two Supreme Court cases that have declared the Bush administration 's interpretation of the law inaccurate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

What, exactly, is the legal definition of a "black-letter law"? You mean it's a law that must be followed? What are all the other laws called?

And what would the US Supreme Court say about your "black letter" laws?

Black Letter Law" Defined Definition of "Black Letter Law" ... The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon On; * Black Letter Law *

BLACK LETTER LAW - The principles of law which are generally known and free from doubt or dispute.

Good try, but no banana.

You have a problem.

First "black letter law" by your own definition are principles of law, not laws themselves.

No law is a "black letter law", if the Congress and the Supreme Court can change, alter or abolish them.

Second, the law under question WAS changed recently (remember the John Warner Act of 2007 I quoted earlier?), therefore even if I accepted your definition, you'd have to say it wasn't so "black letter" as it was only recently modified

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Oh for God's sake.

Now we're going to debate the meaning of black letter law?

It's a common legal term.  I didn't pull it out of my ass.

But, of course the link I gave you must be one of those liberal media conspiracy sites, so I invite you to look it up for yourself.

It won't be hard to find.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I've given you two Supreme Court cases that have declared the Bush administration 's interpretation of the law inaccurate.

Which only address your second point, and not your first ("pre-emptive war") and your third ("harsh interrogations").

It is on those two points that we are currently discussing.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I suspect that there are a few lawyers on here that could clarify things for us. Why not ask one? Maybe I'm off on a few nuances, and shades of meaning, but you are claiming absolute knowledge in order to further your argument, when it is apparent on it's face that you are shading/shaping concepts to fit your own narrow agenda.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Second, the law under question WAS changed recently (remember the John Warner Act of 2007 I quoted earlier?), therefore even if I accepted your definition, you'd have to say it wasn't so "black letter" as it was only recently modified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I've given you two Supreme Court cases that have declared the Bush administration 's interpretation of the law inaccurate.

Which only address your second point, and not your first ("pre-emptive war") and your third ("harsh interrogations").

It is on those two points that we are currently discussing.

Firm

Which I've also given you documentation for, which you declared not competent legal authority, even though one was an internal Army report that led to the convictions in the Abu Ghraib case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Second, the law under question WAS changed recently (remember the John Warner Act of 2007 I quoted earlier?), therefore even if I accepted your definition, you'd have to say it wasn't so "black letter" as it was only recently modified.

Actually the Insurrection act ammendments instuted in 2007 in the defense authorization bill were repealed in 2008 by the very next Congress i.e. the Democratic Congress we ellected to put a stop to this crap. You weren't actually trying to claim those changes were still in force were you? Did I just catch you playing fast and loose with reality yet again?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I tell you what Firm, let's make this easy.

Since you don't want to bother to Google the term, pick up your Yellow Pages and go to attorneys.

Close your eyes and point your finger, then call whoever your finger lands on and ask them if they can give you a definition of black letter law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Second, the law under question WAS changed recently (remember the John Warner Act of 2007 I quoted earlier?), therefore even if I accepted your definition, you'd have to say it wasn't so "black letter" as it was only recently modified.

Actually the Insurrection act ammendments instuted in 2007 in the defense authorization bill were repealed in 2008 by the very next Congress i.e. the Democratic Congress we ellected to put a stop to this crap. You weren't actually trying to claim those changes were still in force were you? Did I just catch you playing fast and loose with reality yet again?

Thank you DomKen. I didn't expect such support from you against rulemylife.

See, rule? If it were so much a "black letter law", then how was it amended twice in such a short period of time?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Maybe I'm off on a few nuances, and shades of meaning, but you are claiming absolute knowledge in order to further your argument, when it is apparent on it's face that you are shading/shaping concepts to fit your own narrow agenda.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

You miss the point.

You are making assumptions, since you have no facts at all about the so-called event.

Arpig is pointing out that we do not know what the proposal was, exactly: there are no facts. However, in general, any such proposal could have easily been legal, if if followed the two paths he mentioned.

He doesn't claim that they did. He doesn't know, and admits it.

You, on the other hand, claim divine knowledge of not only what this so-called proposal actually said, but what was in the hearts and minds of all the people (supposedly) involved in it.

Firm

I'm talking to you, not Arpig.

I'm not interested in your interpretations of his points.

So maybe you can stop trying to hold hands with other posters and start backing what you are saying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

There is clearly no competent legal authority against the "preemptive war" (your term, not mine) as practiced by Bush.

The Abu Ghraib events were never sanctioned nor planned by the US Administration. Convictions of the individuals guilty of them do not touch on the legality of harsh interrogation methods discussed by the Bush administration.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Posse Comitatus is black letter law. It was not amended. The amendment to the Insurrection Act was repealed without ever being invoked because it was obviously contrary to long established US policy and law.

But I ask again, why have you repeatedly refered to these amendments as if they were still in effect?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Firm

Under the Democratic controlled Congress's passage of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, it appears (at least on first glance), that it would now be perfectly legal for Obama to do exactly what the Bush Admin is being castigated for even considering.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Firm

Second, the law under question WAS changed recently (remember the John Warner Act of 2007 I quoted earlier?), therefore even if I accepted your definition, you'd have to say it wasn't so "black letter" as it was only recently modified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


You havent missed any nuances. There is a broad range of interpretations of what "black letter law" is ranging from firmly established principles that form the basis for laws, to laws that are rarely disputed, to those that are simply agreed to by a majority of judges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


You havent missed any nuances. There is a broad range of interpretations of what "black letter law" is ranging from firmly established principles that form the basis for laws, to laws that are rarely disputed, to those that are simply agreed to by a majority of judges.

And this claim is based on what?

I've already provided a definition from a legal dictionary, and cited the source.

What do you have to offer to counter that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

There is clearly no competent legal authority against the "preemptive war" (your term, not mine) as practiced by Bush.

The Abu Ghraib events were never sanctioned nor planned by the US Administration. Convictions of the individuals guilty of them do not touch on the legality of harsh interrogation methods discussed by the Bush administration.

Firm

OK, let's try things this way.

I've given you numerous links and support for my position.

What you have given me is telling me that I am wrong in my opinions and my sources are not credible.

Yet, I have not seen you offer anything to substantiate your claims.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I tell you what Firm, let's make this easy.

Since you don't want to bother to Google the term, pick up your Yellow Pages and go to attorneys.

Close your eyes and point your finger, then call whoever your finger lands on and ask them if they can give you a definition of black letter law.

So this is your concession post?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Posse Comitatus is black letter law. It was not amended. The amendment to the Insurrection Act was repealed without ever being invoked because it was obviously contrary to long established US policy and law.

But I ask again, why have you repeatedly refered to these amendments as if they were still in effect?

Same ole DK, huh?

"Repeatedly", huh?

Post 157:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Firm

Under the Democratic controlled Congress's passage of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, it appears (at least on first glance), that it would now be perfectly legal for Obama to do exactly what the Bush Admin is being castigated for even considering.

quote:


If you'd go back and read ... I mentioned it once, while saying that it had changed the terms of when a president could use Federal troops. It did, didn't it?

And, I said "at first glance", as well, did I not?

And, I asked the question - which no one had the balls to answer - that it gave Obama the right to do what Bush is accused of thinking about doing. Is this your attempt to finally answer that question?

Good, I'd like to see it. Yanno, a cite, not an opinion.


The second time I mentioned it was in post 222:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Firm

Second, the law under question WAS changed recently (remember the John Warner Act of 2007 I quoted earlier?), therefore even if I accepted your definition, you'd have to say it wasn't so "black letter" as it was only recently modified.

This comment goes only to the fact that there have been changes to the law governing the use of Federal troops. If indeed, it was changed yet again, it does nothing more than reinforce my point.

Of course, you wish to make it appear as those I'm somehow trying to press a point that is invalid.

Nice try.

Now ... would you be so kind as to provide proof that the Warner act - as it relates to the use of Federal forces in domestic situations during Martial Law - has been repealed?

Thank you for your support.

Firm