Pelosi met with thunderous boos.

[Mr. H.]

Now here's some thunderous booze that I would actually welcome...

 

[rdean]

But shortly after Pelosi was booed over her comments on Snowden, she received applause from the crowd by declaring that "the real crime is outsourcing our national security."

Remember this:

Did Bush and McCain give the $100 billion tanker project to Airbus?

McCain wanted to outsource a huge part of our air force to France.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I too believe he violated the law.

Was it a just law? Use MLK's definition of just and unjust laws to answer this question:

One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

 

[Mr. H.]

I too believe he violated the law.

Was it a just law? Use MLK's definition of just and unjust laws to answer this question:

One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

Law has no hindsight, you stupid fuck. It is built upon historical case as well as foresight.

If you want to question it, take it to the Supreme Court.

 

[Oddball]

But shortly after Pelosi was booed over her comments on Snowden, she received applause from the crowd by declaring that "the real crime is outsourcing our national security."

Remember this:

Did Bush and McCain give the $100 billion tanker project to Airbus?

McCain wanted to outsource a huge part of our air force to France.

Airbus won the contract fair and square.

It was your lolberal bedmates who made a mockery of the bidding process to pander to their union whores at Boeing.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Oh for goodness sake, how judgemental you are.

Really? Tell me, Sarah ... where does the Catholic church stand on abortion? Where does Pelosi stand on abortion? She and Biden both openly and vocally support abortion, neither should receive holy communion. Fact.

It's cons that let religion guide their politics.
Nancy Pelosi had five kids in her first 6 years of marriage. She doesn't believe in abortion for herself.

Your first sentence is retarded, but you knew that. People who are religious put their religion before their politics. Not our Nan or Uncle Joe. Fuck the Catholic church they say! One doesn't get to pick and choose which parts of Catholicism they agree with and thumb their nose at the rest. She is an abortion proponent; Catholic religion is against abortion. It's not hard to understand. She wants to have her cake and eat it too. She is a hypocrite. So is Joe.

 

[Locke11_21]

Nancy Pelosi got herself booed when she said that Edward Snowden violated the law.

Pelosi booed for saying NSA leaker Snowden violated the law - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Pelosi received the loudest boos and heckles from the crowd when she said Snowden had run afoul of the law by leaking documents to the media on a pair of secret NSA surveillance programs.

Edward Snowden might be the last pressure on the existing fissures in the nation, causing them to fully crack and separate.

He did violate the law. Must have been a Republican crowd that hates her anyway.

Netroots Nation is a progressive organization. I have a few relatives that live in San Jose, Ca - where this incident happened. San Jose is a left-wing sewer like most big cities. Uhhhhh...you won't find any Republicans in Netroots unless their name is Lyndsey Gramnesty, John McCocaine, Marco Rubio, John Boehner or Jeff is a Flake. And if they were there, they would have been cheering Pelosi.

The problem is, you are to much of a blind loyalist to the tyrannical, authoritarian-statist agenda to realize that this is not a liberal or conservative issue, it's an American issue, a freedom issue, a Constitutional issue. Many liberals are just as outraged by this scandal as are conservatives...and many on both sides, including me think of Snowden as patriotic for exposing a serious scandal that Americans need to know about.

Too bad we don't have the House of UnAmerica Activities, Snowden is someone I would want working with them.

 

[Avatar4321]

She should get used to it.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Law has no hindsight, you stupid fuck. It is built upon historical case as well as foresight.

If you want to question it, take it to the Supreme Court.

If you want to question the law, you bring it to a Jury.

"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural god-given unalienable or constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law." -- Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone

Scott Horton, Harpers - America's Founding Fathers made their case to juries arguing for nullification. John Adams, when defending John Hancock in 1771, insisted that the juror has not merely the "right" but actually the "duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court" and its understanding of the law. Conscience should serve as a safety valve, he argued, against unjust laws, or against just laws, unjustly applied.