Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Skiguy, where is that from that you quoted? I think that critics of the program would say that the President is still subject to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which trumps all other laws and regulations. Therefore, it wouldn't necessarily be constitutional even if Congress had given the President this power through another law.I think that it is without question that the parties involved have a privacy interest in their phone conversations. However, what this will likely come down to is whether there is an exception within the warrant requirement that allows the NSA to tap phones. This will turn on the facts in the case - from what I understand, one of the parties has to be a terrorist group or affiliated with terrorism, it has to be an international phone call, etc.
Yeah, you put the link in correctly. 🙂It's interesting that they don't know how the ship met its end. I imagine that there are more secrets of the end of World War II that we don't know about that are still hidden in vaults of information in Russia.
This is technical, so I can't contribute all that much, but I'll try. It's very interesting seeing the dead vs living discussion. Phid, you have a good board and members here. I see opposing political views, yet it's very good discussion without the usual arguing you see on other boards.With that said, and seeing that this surveillance issue is such a hot topic, it would be great to see it discussed here. What do you guys think about it? Is it Constitutional? Should we even be concerned whether or not it is during a time of war, if this actually is a time of war? I think it should be allowed, and I'll leave it at that for now.
Hey thanks, skiguy. Yes, I think that a Constitutional discussion of the current surveillance issue is a good idea, especially given America's powers in times of war. I think I'll start another thread with that issue.
Marc Bolan
Marc Bolan??I think that if Elvis were alive today, his stature would have become somewhat like Paul McCartney's has become. In other words, Graceland wouldn't be worth what it is today. You wouldn't have Japanese PMs wanting to visit Graceland on their trips to America.
I think that sharing information – which is vital for cohesion within an empire – alone would have been difficult. Think about how vast Alexander's empire was. How did he do it? Likely it was through a system of transportation and/or roads and messengers which helped his cause. Later on the Romans would excel in road building, which helps to explain their ability to move information and troops from place to place. I believe the Incans also had a good system of roads in the Andes Mountain area.
To answer some of your points, the Founders were primarily men of ideals and principles, and they knew that there were certain rights – “inalienable” – which endured regardless of changing circumstances. They created a document which would hold weight not only back when they made it, but in succeeding generations as well. Because the nature of man doesn't change, their principles could apply from age to age (and they do). They built "flexibility" into the Constitution to a degree, but they didn't make it so easy that it could be changed too easily. After all, they were familiar with abuse of power in European nations. In essence, they wanted the principles set forth in the Constitution to prevail over time, while allowing for limited changes according to the desires of the States.As for original intent, I think that it is possible to get a good idea of the Framers' views by studying history, studying their writings, etc. If we don't attempt this, we run into trouble. What would stop the courts from one day saying that the prohibition of "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" only applies to "speech" and "the press", but not to private letters, e-mails, etc? If the principles of the Constitution change with the times, a judge could certainly interpret the First Amendment to not protect certain rights that we take for granted. We can understand from the original intent that the freedom protected here covers more than just oral speech and the press. I believe that Congress' regulation of things such as air travel and television fall under Article I Section 3: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes". I'm not sure where the powers to form new states or acquire new territory are derived, but I imagine these are questions and issues that have been dealt with in the past. I'd have to look them up, though.And yes, this American Legal History topic has been around for a while, just hidden as a "child board" of the General History Chat......it might just be hard to see at first.
I think that Israel is a pretty good choice. For as small as it was, it really formed the basis for Christianity which eventually covered Europe.I think that Alexander the Great's empire might have been the greatest. I think this might be called the Macedonian or Post-Macedonian empire, but from what I understand it covered the majority of the known world in ancient times. This is quite a phenomenal feat on many levels - political, cultural, military, etc. Think about how difficult it would have been to coordinate any movements spanning hundreds or thousands of miles, let alone dozens of miles. I don't know how he did it, but it must have been amazing.
I would have to agree with you on this one. Hands down, I think that along with Rome, the Greeks have had the most influence on Western Civilization of any ancient population. Alright then, what's the second greatest ancient civilization? This one might be a bit tougher.
Oh, ok, John Adams. Yes, “The Odd Couple” goes to Paris….it would make for a good dramatic comedy if made into a movie. 🙂I recently saw a History Channel show that said Franklin was in Paris for five years...I believe all the way up to the surrender of the British....so Franklin was able to negotiate the peace treaty without really travelling very far.
Yeah I heard that Donnie is living in Madoc's old house somewhere in Kentucky these days…lol. Actually, I had never heard of the tale before. I did find the link to the Wikipedia article about him:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoc
I think that basically any movie can be considered “historical” from the standpoint that a) it is about an historical episode in history, or b) in that it depicts society at some time other than our own, or c) it depicts how a past society viewed the world at any time. Confusing? Let me explain:An example of the first kind of movie would be "Gone with the Wind". An example of the second type would be "To Kill a Mockingbird", where we see rough Americana society in the South in the 1950s/60s. An example of the third type of movie would be "Bladerunner", or any of the original "Star Trek" shows (ok, a TV series rather than a movie). These last few show how society in the past conceived the future; Bladerunner is almost comical where it uses an old 1980s monitor for a futuristic screen, and Star Trek offered a somewhat utopian view of futuristic earth affairs and so forth....perhaps having Kirk fall in love with any attractive alien was a reflection of the sexual revolution of the 1960s....
Sure….I'll move this topic into the American Legal History board and we can discuss this, since it is an interesting area.I believe that the Constitution is a "dead" document; in other words, it is necessary to try to determine the sense and intent behind the words in the Constitution as written by the Framers. I do not agree with the "living document" interpretation of the Constitution which argues that the meaning of the law changes according to the times. This latter interpretation essentially renders the Constitution meaningless, since the rights protected under the original document won't necessarily hold true in the future.
And I don't care what websites you find, 110,000 Americans citizens WERE swept up in a matter of weeks from one entire section of the country and FORCED to leave almost everything behind while they were FORCED to move into what were concentration camps where they were held without any legal recourse for at least a year, perhaps more, I'm not sure of the time frame offhand, but then the amount of time is irrelevant. Nothing even close to this was done to any other group, and it was done to this group BECAUSE they were Japanese or of Japanese ancestry. Other groups may have been mistreated during the war - this country has a history of mistreating or taking advantage of immigrants - but nothing on the scale that we did to the Nissei.
Well, I think I've been more than fair enough in explaining my position and backing up my findings with sources. So if you "don't care" what evidence I'm using in support of my findings - or my presentation of other people's findings - having this conversation becomes rather moot, and we can both start claiming whatever we want. History is full of fact and fiction, and so it's important to at least attempt to distinguish the two. That's my preference in tackling historical issues, particularly when they have some effect in present-day issues.
Well, the site that I pointed to is the one which discusses the myth that I referred to. Mind you, the myth is not that internment did not happen, but rather that it was “en mass” interment (i.e. a simultaneous sweep). And again, I think that the sites I pointed out are pretty definitive in that this kind of thing was not confined to Japanese in America.As far as your second points go, I agree with some of what you say, although I don't think it's really related to racial or ethnic internment. I agree that calling for an exit strategy in Iraq shouldn't be treated with scorn, since our goal should be to leave Iraq at some time, unless we plan on making Iraq a commonwealth of the U.S. (or something like that). And while dissent may have been suppressed during times of war in the past (likely for all of history), I think that in modern times that common sense has been suppressed by political correctness, including during times of war. That is something we need to watch out for IMO.
