Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paul_philp who wrote (36602)	8/9/2002 9:48:36 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

If we start tossing out our constituting principles for the sake of expedience, we are lost. Non-lawyers think this, but in fact, civil liberties are always curtailed during wartime. A Roman maxim: inter arma silent leges, "in times of war all laws are silent." Read Chief Justice Rehnquist's All The Laws But One. Some examples: Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the internment of the Japanese during WWII. I recently re-read the three main decisions pertaining to the internment, and it's clear that as a concept, internment of Japanese-born people living in the US during WWII was constitutional because there had been incidents already of their assisting the Japanese government covertly. However, internment of American-born people of Japanese heritage was unconstitutional absent some showing of loyalty to the Japanese government. Which isn't directly on point with the case you mentioned, but my point is that in times of war, civil liberties have always taken a back seat and public safety is something which is taken more seriously. Civil liberties don't do you any good if you're dead. I don't know how courts make decisions about constitutional interests in Canada but I assume it's the same way it's done in the US -- competing constitutional interests are all important, and must be balanced. The balance in wartime is struck differently than in time of peace.

To: paul_philp who wrote (36602)	8/9/2002 10:30:24 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

Well, while invoking my name, Paul, you were responding to a post from LindyBill. As for the meaning of the Will piece, I think there are at least two possibilities. First, the one you note, an argument from principle, even when it runs against his dispositions. Second, a more manipulative view, that he thinks a vote now would embarass likely future Dem presidential candidates into voting for it. I have little if any respect for Will, as opposed to Novak, so suspect him of the latter. But the first is always possible. Bought any digital tuners lately?? ;-)))