michael@xanadu.com (Michael McClary) (01/13/90)
In article <30750@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> pierce@cs.ucla.edu () writes: >In article <11358@venera.isi.edu> ipser@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Ed Ipser) writes: > >> Almost half (49%) thought the President could suspend the >> Constitution in times of war or emergency. > >Frankly, I thought so, too. I thought that one of Oliver North's >assignments had been too draw up a detailed plan for such a >state of emergency and that this was not considered an illegal >act during the Iran/Contra hearings. Do you mean that the >Constitution doesn't explicitly give this right to the executive >branch? Lincoln suspended some of the Constitution even way back in >the Civil War era when the central government and the executive >branch were much less powerful and sophisticated. Nope. The Constitution is the "License to Operate a Government". If the operators of the government suspend it, they have not suspended your civil rights. Instead, they have suspended their claim to legitimacy. However, the Constitution does have provisions for suspending some civil liberties during difficult times, and the Congress has passed laws specifying how this is to be done, and authorizing the President to activate these laws by declaraing a "State of <X>". It should be noted that: - Several "States of Emergency" are currently in force. (One dates from the Korean War.) Among other things, this raises the penalties for espionage, making it tough on whistle-blowers. - The legislation authorizing the declaration of an "Internal Security Emergency" includes provision for interning people who "may be able to" interfere with the government or commerce, and provides that the courts have no jurisdiction over their release until 30 days AFTER the state is ENDED, but provides no limit on the length of the state. (Makes it tough to test the law's constitutionality, eh?) The Constitution also sets up the three branches of government as a triple-redundancy system, with mechanisms short of revolution for any two branches to try to correct misconduct in a third. (Unfortunately, this isn't much help if TWO branches fail.)
johnob@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (John Obendorfer) (01/20/90)
In article <1990Jan12.230130.9218@xanadu.com> michael@xanadu.UUCP (Michael McClary) writes: > - The legislation authorizing the declaration of an "Internal Security > Emergency" includes provision for interning people who "may be able > to" interfere with the government or commerce, and provides that the > courts have no jurisdiction over their release until 30 days AFTER > the state is ENDED, but provides no limit on the length of the state. > (Makes it tough to test the law's constitutionality, eh?) This is why, in my humble opinion, that "executive orders" should not have any force of law, as they seem to do, and that all laws passed by Congress should go directly to the Supreme Court for a constitutionality check. This would solve two problems: it would rid us of any future unconstitutional laws, and it would drastically reduce the number of laws Congress could pass in a given year, which in my eyes is a good thing. It seems to me that part of our country's problems comes from the fact that it is so easy to get a law passed, compared with what it takes to get a unconstitutional one removed. (And, for that matter, once an un- constitutional law is overturned, there is nothing to stop Congress from reenacting and enforcing it until it is overturned again ... ) John