Yes the whole point behind the geneva conventions was two-fold… protect soldiers and protect civs… it also is suppose to set the rules in which terrorists are defined… and basically covers everything the SC ruling was about already… the ruling was complete BS. Not only do we have the legal right to annex cuba(and other countries) as well as enforce our laws their… but neither US soldiers nor civs have this right…
Plus on top of that the “right”(habeas corpus) in question can legally be suspended… thus even if these terrorist somehow had said right they can have it legally removed. So the ruling in every way goes against the constitution. The ruling is basically a way to open the door for leftist imperialism via the legal system.
As for the gun ruling… its a tiny step back towards sanity… after a long hard sprint away from it. However as pointed out the fact that this was a 5-4 vote is sad and dangerous…
The best was stevens who clearly doesn’t understand a thing about the constitution… with a quote like this
“Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate property rights.”
He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”
With some more he plans on giving to future cases.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate beliefs.”
He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate wages and labor.”
He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate the internet or any new form of expression/media.”
He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”
Most ppl attack the 2nd Admin because they really want to attack the 1st admin… The 1st and 2nd Admins are basically setup the same… if you can defeat the 2nd Admin then you can challenge the 1st… and more importantly without the 2nd Admin you only have rights until the government decides other wise…
As someone said above it would be good to use many of the same tactics the civil rights movement used(being this is the new civil right movement for this decade). Cities and such will likely turn to insane taxes and paper work to enforce BS laws… I would suggest comparing owning a gun to abortion rights… one state can make laws and such that prevent the poor or other groups from not having access to their “rights” and in turn laws can’t be made in which to deny gun owners the right to carry via taxes… I would think with a good legal team not only could you use arguments suchs as that to defeat the massive forms and taxes but to force states to either have open carry or make CCW very easy/cheap to get.
