[wdvltalk-social] USA plicital reporting outsde of the US

[joseph]

On 07/10/2012 14:33, Christina Lannen wrote:
> Google "NDAA"  or "National Defense Authorization Act".  It completely
> violates the US Constitution.
>
> Chris
>    

I was hoping specifically for your summary of the things you had in 
mind. But this Act, and I suppose most military legislations, makes the 
case for US courts overseeing Congress law. They had a go here at ending 
habeus corpus, but that was seen off in short order. I certainly agree 
that except in a dictatorship, removing habeus corpus makes little 
difference to the serious crime matters, but removes a major protection 
from ordinary citizens.

The Supreme Court in the US has given some odd rulings on companies that 
stretch constitutional definitions beyond sense, so I don't know how 
they will tackle this, except they should be aware as lawyers, that 
without habeus corpus they are dead meat themselves. This failure of 
definition seems to be a trend. Google in its book agreement proposals 
made al l the definitions vague, and had the cheek to say to each that 
they, Google, would define the terms as needed!

Incidentally, because of their behaviour in publishing and against 
copyright, I rarely use that search engine. I do search, but there are 
plenty of good engines; not that I give them any ad click income for 
them to lose with my absence :-) .

I've been amazed at some of the legislation passed in recent years, and 
also some of the court judgements, here and your side of the Atlantic. 
One needs to keep the pressure up on the politicians, but they are often 
pawns anyway. Not a good time for democracy.

Joseph