This is from the party who wants to remove the 2nd Amendment. (Not to mention the 1st). How can he say this when Ashcroft seems to be the only AG who knows what “Shall not be infringed” means.

This tidbit is a lump of crap in a huge pile.

Posted by: jones at July 29, 2004 10:50 PM

Jones,

Not remove it, just enforce the ENTIRE second amendment. Remember how it starts:

A well regulated malitia, being necessary . . .

Posted by: Todd at July 29, 2004 11:11 PM

..that line made me puke..but from a lawyer …its all up for interpretation right…wanna bet theres a party going on at the ranch..;-)))

Posted by: Rob_NC at July 29, 2004 11:20 PM

Yes, an AG who will uphold the constitution, send Cuban children back to Castro at gunpoint, and deploy tanks in Waco.

Give me Ashcroft any day of the week.

Posted by: DWC at July 29, 2004 11:54 PM

DWC

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to whose plan was enacted during the final hours of the Waco siege. And also let us know who the Deputy Undersecretary Of Defense For Intelligence and the Army Chief Of Staff are, and whether their remit includes the triumph of Abu Ghraib and the neutralisation of Al-Sadr. Or were those operations Reno’s fault also?

Posted by: bananas at July 30, 2004 12:10 AM

Militia is citizens of age.

Shall not be infringed giving you problems?

Posted by: jones at July 30, 2004 12:29 AM

bananas,

..put down that pipe you’re smoking and back away slowly..

Posted by: TexasGal at July 30, 2004 12:31 AM

That’s a new logical fallacy - the appeal to Old Toby.

More Reno/Ashcroft comparison fun. Compare the published priorities of both AGs during the year before 9/11. Display where counter-terrorism ranks on both lists, where applicable. Bonus marks awarded for confirming whether domestic counter-terrorism funding was cut in the month before 9/11.

Posted by: bananas at July 30, 2004 01:12 AM

Will The Honorable Attorney General of The United States of America John Ascroft even be around for a highly dubious 2nd term? Even if this administration manages to eke out a win (and I just know someone has been tasked with finding out a method that is technically untraceable), I still don’t see him having a prayer.

URGENT PRAYER REQUEST!

An urgent call has just been received from an Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice asking us to spread the word that Attorney General Ashcroft is in desperate need of prayer. They are asking all of us to get the word out to our churches and membership immediately. AG Ashcroft is in critical condition due to something called Gall Stone Pancreatitis. It is an infection of the pancreas due to a gall stone. You cannot live without your pancreas but the infection is so bad now that they cannot operate. Please pray that the infection will end and that the doctors can take care of the problem or just pray for healing. Jim Combey has been sworn in as the acting Attorney General for now.

-Your friends at www.conservativepetitions.com

Posted by: obelus at July 30, 2004 02:05 AM

well regulated giving you problems?

Further, remember what shall not be infringed, the right to keep and bear arms.

There is a difference between absolute license and rights, and there is 200 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence, not to mention 2000 years of political philosophy, demonstrating that rights with limits is the only way to have rights, properly so called.

You can’t read the Constitution selectively, folks. And Kerry is right: we need an attorney general that understands that. Ashcroft has denigrated the rule of law in the United States. The issue is not who Clinton’s AG was, but who Kerry’s might be.

I have heard talk of Eliot Spitzer.

Posted by: Todd at July 30, 2004 12:07 PM

Posted by: Todd at July 30, 2004 12:07 PM

You can’t read the Constitution selectively, folks. And Kerry is right: we need an attorney general that understands that. Ashcroft has denigrated the rule of law in the United States. The issue is not who Clinton’s AG was, but who Kerry’s might be.

Todd,

I offer the following excerpt for your consideration.

“In 1861, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and historians today applaud the restraint he displayed in throwing thousands of American citizens in jail. By the middle of 2002, George W. Bush had declared two American citizens enemy combatants, and both men are still in jail at this writing, uncharged. Both presidents used war as a rationale for their actions, citing as their primary constitutional responsibility the protection of the American people. It was not until two years later that Congress took up Lincoln’s action and pronounced it constitutionally justified. Our willingness to extend Bush the same latitude will depend on our perception of what exactly we’re up against, post-9/11. Lincoln was fighting for the very soul of this country; he was fighting to preserve this country, as a country, and so he had to challenge the Constitution in order to save it. Bush seems to think that he’s fighting for the very soul of this country, but that’s exactly what many people regard as a dangerous presumption. He seems to think that he is fighting for our very survival, when all we’re asking him to fight for is our security, which is a very different thing. A fight for our security? We can handle that; it means we have to get to the airport early. A fight for our survival? That means we have to live in a different country altogether. That means the United States is changing and will continue to change, the way it did during and after the Civil War, with a fundamental redefinition of executive authority. That means we have to endure the constitutional indignity of the president’s declaring Jose Padilla an enemy combatant for contemplating the still-uncommitted crime of blowing up a radioactive device in an American city, which seems a constitutional indignity too great to endure, unless we think of the constitutional indignities we’d have to endure if Padilla had actually committed the crime he’s accused of planning. Unless we think of how this country might change if we get hit again, and hit big. In defending his suspension of habeas corpus, Lincoln sought to draw the distinction between liberties that are absolute and those that are sustainable in time of war. Bush seems to be relying on the same question, and the same distinction, as an answer to all the lawyers and editorial writers who suggest that if Jose Padilla stays in jail, we are losing the war on terror by abrogating our own ideals.

Kerry is not only WRONG, he is DANGEROUSLY WRONG. The “Kerry Way” leads us right back into the complacency and Political Correctness that resulted in 911 (as an aside, I have determined that Political Correctness is inversely proportional to Common Sense!). Period. The issue is who is willing to do WHAT IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT AMERICA, not doing merely what is “popular”.

Your thoughts now?!

Posted by: DevilDoc at July 30, 2004 02:02 PM

Devil Doc:

Here are my thoughts: Comparing Lincoln to Bush and Ashcroft is much like comparing Iraq and North Korea. There are similarities and differences, and the differences make all the difference.

On the subject of suspending civil liberties to combat threats to national security, I tend to subscribe to the opinion that the ends don’t justify the means. That goes for Lincoln, too. There are some historians who point out that he didn’t really need to do it. But I’m not really interested in having that debate.

But, to be absolutely clear, even if Lincoln pulled it off once in an extremely unusual situation, (1) I don’t think that should be U.S. Policy, and (2) Bush and Ashcroft are ill-equipped, mentally and morally, to be entrusted with such a grave responsibility. I think some of the detentions were absolutely necessary, some enhanced national security. It bothers me, though, that our country is rounding people up and holding them in prison for years without charging them with anything. When I was growing up, I was taught that this was what the communists did, and why they need to be stopped.

And I don’t see how enforcing civil rights is akin to political correctness. Incidentally, I favor the former and loathe the latter.

Obviously, you have issues. Keep ‘em coming. I’ll try to help you work through them.

Posted by: Todd at July 30, 2004 06:24 PM

Todd

Would you please expound on the rounding em up and throwing them in prisom part. I was unaware of any such activities.

Chads

Posted by: Chads at July 31, 2004 12:23 AM

Since January 11, 2002, the U.S. government has sent over seven hundred people picked up from around the world to Guantanamo. Currently some 660 are in detention, including an undisclosed number of children. As the detention camp begins its third year, the public still does not know who the detainees are, what they have allegedly done, and whether and when they will be charged with crimes or released.

Posted by: Todd at July 31, 2004 08:22 PM