[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming

analysis server - report sorting problem

keropi

3/19/2007 12:32:00 PM

hi ppl, i have this problem with analysis services, the sorting of the
report works perfectly until the reports are cached. once the reports
are cached, those cached reports cannot be sorted anymore. can someone
help me with the problem? thank you.
10 Answers

David Hartung

6/19/2008 2:21:00 PM

0

Matt wrote:
> On Jun 19, 8:02 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Matt wrote:
>>> On Jun 19, 7:13 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet Daily, or
>>>> for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises several
>>>> interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who wrote the
>>>> majority opinion in the Guantanamo case, openly and blatantly violated
>>>> the Constitution.
>>>> If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is it not
>>>> proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
>>>> http://tinyurl....
>>>> From the piece:
>>>> I decided to read the ruling for myself.
>>>> After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked aspects
>>>> of the decision:
>>>> * The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
>>>> congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners in
>>>> Guantanamo Bay would be protected, it also reviewed a law specifically
>>>> exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.
>>>> * The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections it
>>>> affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory of Guantanamo Bay under
>>>> U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so controlled by the
>>>> U.S. military.
>>> Sorry, I had serious problems reading after finding this gem:
>>> In doing so, the majority on the court issued some words that should
>>> chill every American's spine and grab the attention of the Congress,
>>> from which the court is usurping legislative authority.
>>> "To hold that the political branches (Congress and the executive
>>> branch) may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a
>>> regime in which they, not this Court, say 'what the law is,'" wrote
>>> the majority in the syllabus to the decision.
>>> So, it's official! This court believes a majority of five judges in
>>> black robes decides the law of the land, not the Congress of the
>>> United States with the consent of the president.
>>> **************
>>> Um, yes, that's correct. The Supreme Court DOES decide the law of the
>>> land, in accordance with their reading of the Constitution. After
>>> that, the rest of it was just garbage.
>> The Constitution gives the Congress authority to determine what the
>> scope of the court's authority is. The law in question specifically
>> stated that the civilian courts did not have jurisdiction. This being
>> the case, it appears that the Supreme Court may have violated the
>> Constitution.
>>
>> Your thoughts?
>
> Are you under the impression that the Supreme Court is a "civilan"
> court?
> If that were true, then ALL laws could be voided by simply assigning
> them
> to a military court. Of course the SCOTUS applies to military courts.

Valid point.

When I have the time , perhaps I will read the law in question.

jjm1954@aol.com

6/19/2008 6:36:00 PM

0

On Jun 19, 8:02?am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 7:13 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet Daily, or
> >> for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises several
> >> interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who wrote the
> >> majority opinion in the Guantanamo case, openly and blatantly violated
> >> the Constitution.
>
> >> If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is it not
> >> proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
>
> >>http://tinyurl....
>
> >> ?From the piece:
> >> I decided to read the ruling for myself.
>
> >> After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked aspects
> >> of the decision:
>
> >> ? ? ?* The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
> >> congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners in
> >> Guantanamo Bay would be protected, it also reviewed a law specifically
> >> exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.
>
> >> ? ? ?* The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections it
> >> affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory of Guantanamo Bay under
> >> U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so controlled by the
> >> U.S. military.
>
> > Sorry, I had serious problems reading after finding this gem:
>
> > In doing so, the majority on the court issued some words that should
> > chill every American's spine and grab the attention of the Congress,
> > from which the court is usurping legislative authority.
>
> > "To hold that the political branches (Congress and the executive
> > branch) may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a
> > regime in which they, not this Court, say 'what the law is,'" wrote
> > the majority in the syllabus to the decision.
>
> > So, it's official! This court believes a majority of five judges in
> > black robes decides the law of the land, not the Congress of the
> > United States with the consent of the president.
> > **************
>
> > Um, yes, that's correct. The Supreme Court DOES decide the law of the
> > land, in accordance with their reading of the Constitution. After
> > that, the rest of it was just garbage.
>
> The Constitution gives the Congress authority to determine what the
> scope of the court's authority is. The law in question specifically
> stated that the civilian courts did not have jurisdiction. This being
> the case, it appears that the Supreme Court may have violated the
> Constitution.
>
> Your thoughts?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I didn't think anyone could be so fucking stupid, but,
congratulations. You did it.

smrstrauss

6/19/2008 7:56:00 PM

0

On Jun 19, 10:02 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 7:13 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet Daily, or
> >> for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises several
> >> interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who wrote the
> >> majority opinion in theGuantanamocase, openly and blatantly violated
> >> the Constitution.
>
> >> If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is it not
> >> proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
>
> >>http://tinyurl....
>
> >> From the piece:
> >> I decided to read the ruling for myself.
>
> >> After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked aspects
> >> of the decision:
>
> >> * The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
> >> congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners in
> >>GuantanamoBay would be protected, it also reviewed a law specifically
> >> exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.
>
> >> * The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections it
> >> affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory ofGuantanamoBay under
> >> U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so controlled by the
> >> U.S. military.
>
> > Sorry, I had serious problems reading after finding this gem:
>
> > In doing so, the majority on the court issued some words that should
> > chill every American's spine and grab the attention of the Congress,
> > from which the court is usurping legislative authority.
>
> > "To hold that the political branches (Congress and the executive
> > branch) may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a
> > regime in which they, not this Court, say 'what the law is,'" wrote
> > the majority in the syllabus to the decision.
>
> > So, it's official! This court believes a majority of five judges in
> > black robes decides the law of the land, not the Congress of the
> > United States with the consent of the president.
> > **************
>
> > Um, yes, that's correct. TheSupreme CourtDOES decide the law of the
> > land, in accordance with their reading of the Constitution. After
> > that, the rest of it was just garbage.
>
> The Constitution gives the Congress authority to determine what the
> scope of the court's authority is. The law in question specifically
> stated that the civilian courts did not have jurisdiction. This being
> the case, it appears that theSupreme Courtmay have violated the
> Constitution.
>
> Your thoughts?

It is one of the Supreme Court's jobs to rule that some laws are
unconstitutional. For example, when it ruled that aspects of McCain
Feingold was an unconstitutional infringement of the right of free
speech, the right wing celebrated. The Supreme Court ruled that the
line-item veto was unconstitutional, and a lot of people said "too
bad," but big deal.

There has been, oddly, only two cases that I can think of in which the
US people went to the effort to overturn a ruling of the US Supreme
Court, and that was not on such things as abortion, flag burning or
prayer in schools. The two cases were Slavery (the 13th amendment,
overturning Dred Scott) and ironically the income tax (the 16th
amendment). The irony is that Americans ever thought that the income
tax was so important that they had two-thirds votes in each house and
a three-quarters vote of the states to make it legal.

In any case, when the Congress says the the Supreme Court, "You cannot
rule on X," that is likely to be unconstitutional. In this case the
Supreme Court did indeed find that particular law that limited the
judiciary was and is unconstitutional. The reason, for those of us who
are strict constructionists, is that that law limited the right of
Habeus Corpus.

David Hartung

6/19/2008 8:03:00 PM

0

smrstrauss wrote:
> On Jun 19, 10:02 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Matt wrote:
>>> On Jun 19, 7:13 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet Daily, or
>>>> for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises several
>>>> interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who wrote the
>>>> majority opinion in theGuantanamocase, openly and blatantly violated
>>>> the Constitution.
>>>> If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is it not
>>>> proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
>>>> http://tinyurl....
>>>> From the piece:
>>>> I decided to read the ruling for myself.
>>>> After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked aspects
>>>> of the decision:
>>>> * The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
>>>> congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners in
>>>> GuantanamoBay would be protected, it also reviewed a law specifically
>>>> exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.
>>>> * The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections it
>>>> affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory ofGuantanamoBay under
>>>> U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so controlled by the
>>>> U.S. military.
>>> Sorry, I had serious problems reading after finding this gem:
>>> In doing so, the majority on the court issued some words that should
>>> chill every American's spine and grab the attention of the Congress,
>>> from which the court is usurping legislative authority.
>>> "To hold that the political branches (Congress and the executive
>>> branch) may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a
>>> regime in which they, not this Court, say 'what the law is,'" wrote
>>> the majority in the syllabus to the decision.
>>> So, it's official! This court believes a majority of five judges in
>>> black robes decides the law of the land, not the Congress of the
>>> United States with the consent of the president.
>>> **************
>>> Um, yes, that's correct. TheSupreme CourtDOES decide the law of the
>>> land, in accordance with their reading of the Constitution. After
>>> that, the rest of it was just garbage.
>> The Constitution gives the Congress authority to determine what the
>> scope of the court's authority is. The law in question specifically
>> stated that the civilian courts did not have jurisdiction. This being
>> the case, it appears that theSupreme Courtmay have violated the
>> Constitution.
>>
>> Your thoughts?
>
> It is one of the Supreme Court's jobs to rule that some laws are
> unconstitutional. For example, when it ruled that aspects of McCain
> Feingold was an unconstitutional infringement of the right of free
> speech, the right wing celebrated. The Supreme Court ruled that the
> line-item veto was unconstitutional, and a lot of people said "too
> bad," but big deal.
>
> There has been, oddly, only two cases that I can think of in which the
> US people went to the effort to overturn a ruling of the US Supreme
> Court, and that was not on such things as abortion, flag burning or
> prayer in schools. The two cases were Slavery (the 13th amendment,
> overturning Dred Scott) and ironically the income tax (the 16th
> amendment). The irony is that Americans ever thought that the income
> tax was so important that they had two-thirds votes in each house and
> a three-quarters vote of the states to make it legal.
>
> In any case, when the Congress says the the Supreme Court, "You cannot
> rule on X," that is likely to be unconstitutional. In this case the
> Supreme Court did indeed find that particular law that limited the
> judiciary was and is unconstitutional. The reason, for those of us who
> are strict constructionists, is that that law limited the right of
> Habeus Corpus.

You make a good point, to a point.

My problem with the whole decision is that it makes no sense at all to
give those who are enemy comabtants, captured during a war which is
still ongoing, access to the court system. The proper thing to di is to
hold them until the end of hostilities. At which time, they are either
released, or held as war criminals. if they are held as war criminals,
they can be prosecuted after a full and proper investigation. If the
prisoner should be charged as a war criminal, the prisoner would have
proper defense council.

Kevin Cunningham

6/19/2008 9:05:00 PM

0

On Jun 19, 10:02 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 7:13 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet Daily, or
> >> for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises several
> >> interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who wrote the
> >> majority opinion in the Guantanamo case, openly and blatantly violated
> >> the Constitution.
>
> >> If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is it not
> >> proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
>
> >>http://tinyurl....
>
> >> From the piece:
> >> I decided to read the ruling for myself.
>
> >> After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked aspects
> >> of the decision:
>
> >> * The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
> >> congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners in
> >> Guantanamo Bay would be protected, it also reviewed a law specifically
> >> exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.
>
> >> * The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections it
> >> affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory of Guantanamo Bay under
> >> U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so controlled by the
> >> U.S. military.
>
> > Sorry, I had serious problems reading after finding this gem:
>
> > In doing so, the majority on the court issued some words that should
> > chill every American's spine and grab the attention of the Congress,
> > from which the court is usurping legislative authority.
>
> > "To hold that the political branches (Congress and the executive
> > branch) may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a
> > regime in which they, not this Court, say 'what the law is,'" wrote
> > the majority in the syllabus to the decision.
>
> > So, it's official! This court believes a majority of five judges in
> > black robes decides the law of the land, not the Congress of the
> > United States with the consent of the president.
> > **************
>
> > Um, yes, that's correct. The Supreme Court DOES decide the law of the
> > land, in accordance with their reading of the Constitution. After
> > that, the rest of it was just garbage.
>
> The Constitution gives the Congress authority to determine what the
> scope of the court's authority is. The law in question specifically
> stated that the civilian courts did not have jurisdiction. This being
> the case, it appears that the Supreme Court may have violated the
> Constitution.
>
> Your thoughts?

Pure drivel. The supreme court and all federal courts rule on
constitutional questions, that why their federal courts, they rule on
federal matters.

Davie, the three branches of government are co-equal, got that? A law
can not remove the courts from adjudicating a law. Any law can be
brought up before the court if you are affected by that law. There is
no way to keep a law from judicial review. No way.

Learn some law, go to your local two year school and take the business
law course. It would really help.

Werner

6/19/2008 9:36:00 PM

0

On Jun 19, 9:52 am, b...@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:
...
>
>    If congressmen want to nullify the constitution so
>    they can play Gestapo, let 'em *amend* it out of
>    existence the proper way.
>
>    The USSC exists as a brake for legislative/executive
>    'enthusiasm'.


Isn't it high time to join The Resistance?
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Revolution...

Our civil liberties were slipping away long before Patriot Act
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cf... ?http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Patrio...
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Ame...
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/WhatHapp...

ZNUYBV

6/19/2008 9:47:00 PM

0

On Jun 19, 6:33 am, Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 7:13 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet Daily, or
> > for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises several
> > interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who wrote the
> > majority opinion in the Guantanamo case, openly and blatantly violated
> > the Constitution.
>
> > If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is it not
> > proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
>
> >http://tinyurl....
>
> > From the piece:
> > I decided to read the ruling for myself.
>
> > After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked aspects
> > of the decision:
>
> > * The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
> > congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners in
> > Guantanamo Bay would be protected, it also reviewed a law specifically
> > exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.
>
> > * The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections it
> > affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory of Guantanamo Bay under
> > U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so controlled by the
> > U.S. military.
>
> Sorry, I had serious problems reading after finding this gem:
>
> In doing so, the majority on the court issued some words that should
> chill every American's spine and grab the attention of the Congress,
> from which the court is usurping legislative authority.
>
> "To hold that the political branches (Congress and the executive
> branch) may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a
> regime in which they, not this Court, say 'what the law is,'" wrote
> the majority in the syllabus to the decision.
>
> So, it's official! This court believes a majority of five judges in
> black robes decides the law of the land, not the Congress of the
> United States with the consent of the president.
> **************
>
> Um, yes, that's correct. The Supreme Court DOES decide the law of the
> land, in accordance with their reading of the Constitution. After
> that, the rest of it was just garbage.
>
> Matt

Judges are above the law. They make it; they don't have to obey it.

Zoltan

6/19/2008 11:00:00 PM

0

On Jun 19, 1:02 pm, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> smrstrauss wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 10:02 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Matt wrote:
> >>> On Jun 19, 7:13 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet Daily, or
> >>>> for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises several
> >>>> interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who wrote the
> >>>> majority opinion in theGuantanamocase, openly and blatantly violated
> >>>> the Constitution.
> >>>> If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is it not
> >>>> proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
> >>>>http://tinyurl....
> >>>>  From the piece:
> >>>> I decided to read the ruling for myself.
> >>>> After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked aspects
> >>>> of the decision:
> >>>>      * The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
> >>>> congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners in
> >>>> GuantanamoBay would be protected, it also reviewed a law specifically
> >>>> exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.
> >>>>      * The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections it
> >>>> affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory ofGuantanamoBay under
> >>>> U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so controlled by the
> >>>> U.S. military.
> >>> Sorry, I had serious problems reading after finding this gem:
> >>> In doing so, the majority on the court issued some words that should
> >>> chill every American's spine and grab the attention of the Congress,
> >>> from which the court is usurping legislative authority.
> >>> "To hold that the political branches (Congress and the executive
> >>> branch) may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a
> >>> regime in which they, not this Court, say 'what the law is,'" wrote
> >>> the majority in the syllabus to the decision.
> >>> So, it's official! This court believes a majority of five judges in
> >>> black robes decides the law of the land, not the Congress of the
> >>> United States with the consent of the president.
> >>> **************
> >>> Um, yes, that's correct. TheSupreme CourtDOES decide the law of the
> >>> land, in accordance with their reading of the Constitution. After
> >>> that, the rest of it was just garbage.
> >> The Constitution gives the Congress authority to determine what the
> >> scope of the court's authority is. The law in question specifically
> >> stated that the civilian courts did not have jurisdiction. This being
> >> the case, it appears that theSupreme Courtmay have violated the
> >> Constitution.
>
> >> Your thoughts?
>
> > It is one of the Supreme Court's jobs to rule that some laws are
> > unconstitutional. For example, when it ruled that aspects of McCain
> > Feingold was an unconstitutional infringement of the right of free
> > speech, the right wing celebrated. The Supreme Court ruled that the
> > line-item veto was unconstitutional, and a lot of people said "too
> > bad," but big deal.
>
> > There has been, oddly, only two cases that I can think of in which the
> > US people went to the effort to overturn a ruling of the US Supreme
> > Court, and that was not on such things as abortion, flag burning or
> > prayer in schools. The two cases were Slavery (the 13th amendment,
> > overturning Dred Scott) and ironically the income tax (the 16th
> > amendment). The irony is that Americans ever thought that the income
> > tax was so important that they had two-thirds votes in each house and
> > a three-quarters vote of the states to make it legal.
>
> > In any case, when the Congress says the the Supreme Court, "You cannot
> > rule on X," that is likely to be unconstitutional. In this case the
> > Supreme Court did indeed find that particular law that limited the
> > judiciary was and is unconstitutional. The reason, for those of us who
> > are strict constructionists, is that that law limited the right of
> > Habeus Corpus.
>
> You make a good point, to a point.
>
> My problem with the whole decision is that it makes no sense at all to
> give those who are enemy comabtants,

Who says they are enemy combatants? Bush? The Court held that he
cannot do that.

> captured during a war which is still ongoing,

If there had been a declaration of war by the Congress, the case might
have turned out differently (although probably not).
There has been no declaration of war by anyone other than Bush, and he
doesn't have the authority to do that.

> access to the court system.

That's what Bush claimed. The Court told him in no uncertain terms
that he cannot do that.

> The proper thing to di is to hold them until the end of hostilities.

The US Supreme Court has now unequivocally ruled that this is NOT the
proper thing to do.

That ruling makes that holding the law of the United States.

Bush pushed and pushed and pushed until the Supreme Court got tired of
limited rulings; this time they made a broad and general ruling that
will last until or unless the Constitution is amended.

You (and Bush) don't have to like the law. You do have to obey it.

smrstrauss

6/20/2008 1:07:00 AM

0

On Jun 19, 4:02 pm, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> smrstrauss wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 10:02 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Matt wrote:
> >>> On Jun 19, 7:13 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet Daily, or
> >>>> for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises several
> >>>> interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who wrote the
> >>>> majority opinion in theGuantanamocase, openly and blatantly violated
> >>>> the Constitution.
> >>>> If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is it not
> >>>> proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
> >>>>http://tinyurl....
> >>>>  From the piece:
> >>>> I decided to read the ruling for myself.
> >>>> After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked aspects
> >>>> of the decision:
> >>>>      * The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
> >>>> congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners in
> >>>> GuantanamoBay would be protected, it also reviewed a law specifically
> >>>> exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.
> >>>>      * The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections it
> >>>> affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory ofGuantanamoBay under
> >>>> U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so controlled by the
> >>>> U.S. military.
> >>> Sorry, I had serious problems reading after finding this gem:
> >>> In doing so, the majority on the court issued some words that should
> >>> chill every American's spine and grab the attention of the Congress,
> >>> from which the court is usurping legislative authority.
> >>> "To hold that the political branches (Congress and the executive
> >>> branch) may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a
> >>> regime in which they, not this Court, say 'what the law is,'" wrote
> >>> the majority in the syllabus to the decision.
> >>> So, it's official! This court believes a majority of five judges in
> >>> black robes decides the law of the land, not the Congress of the
> >>> United States with the consent of the president.
> >>> **************
> >>> Um, yes, that's correct. TheSupreme CourtDOES decide the law of the
> >>> land, in accordance with their reading of the Constitution. After
> >>> that, the rest of it was just garbage.
> >> The Constitution gives the Congress authority to determine what the
> >> scope of the court's authority is. The law in question specifically
> >> stated that the civilian courts did not have jurisdiction. This being
> >> the case, it appears that theSupreme Courtmay have violated the
> >> Constitution.
>
> >> Your thoughts?
>
> > It is one of theSupreme Court'sjobs to rule that some laws are
> > unconstitutional. For example, when it ruled that aspects of McCain
> > Feingold was an unconstitutional infringement of the right of free
> > speech, the right wing celebrated. TheSupreme Courtruled that the
> > line-item veto was unconstitutional, and a lot of people said "too
> > bad," but big deal.
>
> > There has been, oddly, only two cases that I can think of in which the
> > US people went to the effort to overturn a ruling of the USSupreme> Court, and that was not on such things as abortion, flag burning or
> > prayer in schools. The two cases were Slavery (the 13th amendment,
> > overturning Dred Scott) and ironically the income tax (the 16th
> > amendment). The irony is that Americans ever thought that the income
> > tax was so important that they had two-thirds votes in each house and
> > a three-quarters vote of the states to make it legal.
>
> > In any case, when the Congress says the theSupreme Court, "You cannot
> > rule on X," that is likely to be unconstitutional. In this case the
> >Supreme Courtdid indeed find that particular law that limited the
> > judiciary was and is unconstitutional. The reason, for those of us who
> > are strict constructionists, is that that law limited the right of
> > Habeus Corpus.
>
> You make a good point, to a point.
>
> My problem with the whole decision is that it makes no sense at all to
> give those who are enemy comabtants, captured during a war which is
> still ongoing, access to the court system. The proper thing to di is to
> hold them until the end of hostilities. At which time, they are either
> released, or held as war criminals. if they are held as war criminals,
> they can be prosecuted after a full and proper investigation. If the
> prisoner should be charged as a war criminal, the prisoner would have
> proper defense council.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree with you on those who are merely enemy combatants. Some,
however, are accused of being terrorists, which is a crime. All the
others at Guantanamo are being accused of being "illegal enemy
combatants," which is also a crime.

Now, those that are "illegal enemy combatants," if they win, will
revert to being enemy combatants, which means POWs, and there is no
pressure to release the POWs. They would be sent back to Iraq or
Afghanistan and held with the other POWs. It's only the "illegal" part
that the Supreme Court is concerned with -- one reason being that the
penalties could be worse than just being held as POWs. (In some
countries, "illegal enemy combatants" are shot.)

As for the accused terrorists: The right wing insists that these also
are "illegal enemy combatants" in the War on Terror. The Supreme Court
disagrees. I disagree. But if they are proved to be terrorists, no
problem; they still will be punished.

smrstrauss

6/20/2008 1:10:00 AM

0

On Jun 19, 4:02 pm, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> smrstrauss wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 10:02 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Matt wrote:
> >>> On Jun 19, 7:13 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet Daily, or
> >>>> for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises several
> >>>> interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who wrote the
> >>>> majority opinion in theGuantanamocase, openly and blatantly violated
> >>>> the Constitution.
> >>>> If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is it not
> >>>> proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
> >>>>http://tinyurl....
> >>>>  From the piece:
> >>>> I decided to read the ruling for myself.
> >>>> After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked aspects
> >>>> of the decision:
> >>>>      * The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
> >>>> congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners in
> >>>> GuantanamoBay would be protected, it also reviewed a law specifically
> >>>> exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.
> >>>>      * The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections it
> >>>> affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory ofGuantanamoBay under
> >>>> U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so controlled by the
> >>>> U.S. military.
> >>> Sorry, I had serious problems reading after finding this gem:
> >>> In doing so, the majority on the court issued some words that should
> >>> chill every American's spine and grab the attention of the Congress,
> >>> from which the court is usurping legislative authority.
> >>> "To hold that the political branches (Congress and the executive
> >>> branch) may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a
> >>> regime in which they, not this Court, say 'what the law is,'" wrote
> >>> the majority in the syllabus to the decision.
> >>> So, it's official! This court believes a majority of five judges in
> >>> black robes decides the law of the land, not the Congress of the
> >>> United States with the consent of the president.
> >>> **************
> >>> Um, yes, that's correct. TheSupreme CourtDOES decide the law of the
> >>> land, in accordance with their reading of the Constitution. After
> >>> that, the rest of it was just garbage.
> >> The Constitution gives the Congress authority to determine what the
> >> scope of the court's authority is. The law in question specifically
> >> stated that the civilian courts did not have jurisdiction. This being
> >> the case, it appears that theSupreme Courtmay have violated the
> >> Constitution.
>
> >> Your thoughts?
>
> > It is one of theSupreme Court'sjobs to rule that some laws are
> > unconstitutional. For example, when it ruled that aspects of McCain
> > Feingold was an unconstitutional infringement of the right of free
> > speech, the right wing celebrated. TheSupreme Courtruled that the
> > line-item veto was unconstitutional, and a lot of people said "too
> > bad," but big deal.
>
> > There has been, oddly, only two cases that I can think of in which the
> > US people went to the effort to overturn a ruling of the USSupreme> Court, and that was not on such things as abortion, flag burning or
> > prayer in schools. The two cases were Slavery (the 13th amendment,
> > overturning Dred Scott) and ironically the income tax (the 16th
> > amendment). The irony is that Americans ever thought that the income
> > tax was so important that they had two-thirds votes in each house and
> > a three-quarters vote of the states to make it legal.
>
> > In any case, when the Congress says the theSupreme Court, "You cannot
> > rule on X," that is likely to be unconstitutional. In this case the
> >Supreme Courtdid indeed find that particular law that limited the
> > judiciary was and is unconstitutional. The reason, for those of us who
> > are strict constructionists, is that that law limited the right of
> > Habeus Corpus.
>
> You make a good point, to a point.
>
> My problem with the whole decision is that it makes no sense at all to
> give those who are enemy comabtants, captured during a war which is
> still ongoing, access to the court system. The proper thing to di is to
> hold them until the end of hostilities. At which time, they are either
> released, or held as war criminals. if they are held as war criminals,
> they can be prosecuted after a full and proper investigation. If the
> prisoner should be charged as a war criminal, the prisoner would have
> proper defense council.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Further to that. Under the laws of war, the US military can hold POWs
until the end of hostilities - meaning until the end of the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars. This does not mean until the end of the "War on
Terror," which might take considerably longer.