White House Ready to Draft own Health Care Bill, Sources say - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17178907]The best example was when the former Conservative leader Michael Howard attempted to increase the amount of time Jon Venables and Robert Thompson spent in custody ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger[/url]), the courts essentially told him to shut up and then took the power away from him.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how British law works. So basically federal officials can just arbitrarily alter sentences willy-nilly, or was that just a one-time attempt? That kind of stuff raises serious shitstorms over here. That's gotta' conflict with Habeas Corpus rights, I mean you dudes invented the damn thing. [editline]01:17PM[/editline] [QUOTE=smurfy;17178975]This campaign was successful, and in 1995 Howard announced that the boys would be kept in custody for a minimum of fifteen years, meaning that they would not be considered for release until February 2008, by which time they would be twenty-five years of age. What are you talking about.[/QUOTE] In 1997, the Court of Appeal ruled that Howard's decision to set a fifteen year tariff was unlawful, and the Home Secretary lost his power to set minimum terms for life-sentence prisoners under eighteen-years of age. The High Court and European Court of Human Rights have since ruled that, though the parliament may set minimum and maximum terms for individual categories of crime, it is the responsibility of the trial judge, with the benefit of all the evidence and argument from both prosecution and defense council, to determine the minimum term in individual criminal cases. Thompson and Venables were released on a life licence in June 2001, after serving eight years, when a parole hearing concluded that public safety would not be threatened by their rehabilitation.[2] An injunction was imposed after the trial preventing the publication of details about the boys, for fear of reprisals. The injunction remained in force following their release, so their new identities and locations could not be published. GG way2read

I am confused as a fuckng

[QUOTE=Lankist;17179071]I'm not sure how British law works. So basically federal officials can just arbitrarily alter sentences willy-nilly, or was that just a one-time attempt? That kind of stuff raises serious shitstorms over here. That's gotta' conflict with Habeas Corpus rights, I mean you dudes invented the damn thing. [editline]01:17PM[/editline] In 1997, the Court of Appeal ruled that Howard's decision to set a fifteen year tariff was unlawful, and the Home Secretary lost his power to set minimum terms for life-sentence prisoners under eighteen-years of age. The High Court and European Court of Human Rights have since ruled that, though the parliament may set minimum and maximum terms for individual categories of crime, it is the responsibility of the trial judge, with the benefit of all the evidence and argument from both prosecution and defense council, to determine the minimum term in individual criminal cases. Thompson and Venables were released on a life licence in June 2001, after serving eight years, when a parole hearing concluded that public safety would not be threatened by their rehabilitation.[2] An injunction was imposed after the trial preventing the publication of details about the boys, for fear of reprisals. The injunction remained in force following their release, so their new identities and locations could not be published. GG way2read[/QUOTE] Well sort of. You have to remember that the entire country was utterly horrified at that murder. That's why they were given new identities. If anyone found out who they were, they would most certainly end up dead. Though it might conflict with habeas corpus, nothing like this had really happened before. They were children, who intentionally and purposefully murdered another. The courts were sort of like, "Well, what the fuck do we do". Howard probably wanted them held for longer so that they either a) Couldn't murder again or b) Wouldn't end up murdered themselves because of the utter disgust of the British public. Custody was probably the safest place for them. [editline]06:22PM[/editline] [QUOTE=smurfy;17179129]I am confused as a fuckng[/QUOTE] How? Howard wanted to increase the length of time they could be held in custody. The courts said "You fucking idiot what are you doing" and bitch slapped him and the power out of his hands. Another element of our "weak" seperation of powers is that if the current executive is either doing a bad job, or has done something so utterly outrageous that the public nolonger has any faith in them, the legislative can literally remove the current government from power with a vote of no confidence.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17179168]Well sort of. You have to remember that the entire country was utterly horrified at that murder. That's why they were given new identities. If anyone found out who they were, they would most certainly end up dead. Though it might conflict with habeas corpus, nothing like this had really happened before. They were children, who intentionally and purposefully murdered another. The courts were sort of like, "Well, what the fuck do we do". Howard probably wanted them held for longer so that they either a) Couldn't murder again or b) Wouldn't end up murdered themselves because of the utter disgust of the British public. Custody was probably the safest place for them.[/QUOTE] Yeah but changing a sentence halfway in is a flagrant abuse of power. Anyone who changes a criminal sentence like that clearly didn't pay attention during the original case and quite clearly has more interest in politics than justice. That kind of stuff gets people impeached over here. Once you get your sentence that's it. You're eligible for parole if you're convicted by a state that supports it, but your sentence can only be softened, it can never be increased. It is, however, entirely possible to be sentenced on an entirely different criminal count if you violate your parole and have that punishment added to your existing one.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17146268]Not really no.[/QUOTE] I learned about the Executive branch doing legislation, in the 7th grade.

[QUOTE=dryer-lint;17179465]I learned about the Executive branch doing legislation, in the 7th grade.[/QUOTE] That's cool. I learned about the Executive branch displaying blatant bias, abuses of its power and generally shattering the equilibrium of the federal government when it legislates the things it intends to enforce during studies of United States Civics during my Political Science major, and again during the ongoing ethics probes in regards to the constitutionality of USAPATRIOT and the suspensions of the writ of Habeas Corpus that have become so intertwined with the post-USAPATRIOT field of law. They can try to legislate all they want, but Congress should invariably vote no to anything they did not write.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17179704]That's cool. I learned about the Executive branch displaying blatant bias, abuses of its power and generally shattering the equilibrium of the federal government when it legislates the things it intends to enforce during studies of United States Civics during my Political Science major, and again during the ongoing ethics probes in regards to the constitutionality of USAPATRIOT and the suspensions of the writ of Habeas Corpus that have become so intertwined with the post-USAPATRIOT field of law. They can try to legislate all they want, but Congress should invariably vote no to anything they did not write.[/QUOTE] lol, lol, lol, lol, lol!!!!!!

[QUOTE=smurfy;17179723]lol, lol, lol, lol, lol!!!!!![/QUOTE] Would you care to share your basis of knowledge?

What ever happened to that nice long written document about how our government is suppose to work? Ughhh something called the constitution perhaps yeah....