8. Get real about global warming.

9. Restructure global trade agreements to insure economic gains for low and middle income families.

10. Initiate a universal, single-payer health care system.

I'd move these into the top five priorities.

Re; Launch hearings for mandatory national public preschools, beginning at age three, and for intelligent school schedules.

Kids should be given time and space to be kids, not launched into school as soon as they can walk and talk. Modern children are far too regimented as it is. Likewise after-school but before dark play time is is worth keeping. As for who's going to watch them, attack the problem at the other end by pressing for paid parental leave, flexible work schedules, telecommuting, etc.

I think you're on to something, JPF311. Watching my grandchildren go through school recently, I saw an enormous amount of busy work and time-wasting that was an unnecessary burden on both kids and teachers, and did not involve much of either teaching or learning.

This is not to say that there are not children who are capable of benefitting from pre-schools, just that among the problems in our schools I would not rank kids spending too little time there very high.

The proposal seems to be designed as a solution for two-wage-earner families in need of inexpensive baby-sitters rather than to advance the education of children. Your proposed alternatives are much more productive.

Beware of the fanatics, they never see gray.

I live a few miles from what was once a prisoner of war camp for members of the Waffen SS. Some had been spies captured in Europe. They lived a pretty comfortable life here in this American prison camp.

Should we have extended Habeous corpus rights to them upon arrival?

For the record, I don't think so.

This is completely correct. I did not go to pre-school until age 4 (though when I did I went to it 5 days a week) and I am glad I did not start earlier. I do have a problem with the fact that they are public and mandatory. Does that mean you cannot send your child to a private pre-school?

Also, the only way I can see to agreeing to "pre-school" would be if they were dedicated at least at age three to the social interaction and play and free-form learning if at all.

Excellently put JPF311.

With regard to your "there is no third way" statement. Maybe you could provide some evidence of the first two, so we can discuss the third.

I think your interest in "Natural law" is a good idea, I disagree with your interpretation. Using your interpretation, A person has a natural right to something and a constitutional government that functions by the consent of the people is not capable of describing, delineating or even protecting the right because any action the government takes regarding this right is some sort of usurpation of the natural law.

If the right of Habeas corpus is a natural law, it is a law that relates to how "Humans" interact with their government. That means government plays a part, so the government DOES have some control of the application and protection of Habeas Corpus. Saddam Hussein was in US custody, did he deserve Habeas Corpus protections from US Courts or Iraqi courts? How about Herman Goerring? Which government should establish a Habeas Corpus Relationship with the Human. Should I be able to ask for a Trial in Rome or Paris if I am arrested in New York?

Earlier you were excited about the discussion of Habeas Corpus rights for the Beheading Terrorists. Which government are you concerned with? Your Natural law interest is nice, but when you jump to all kinds of conclusions that nobody else in the world understands it like you do because you would like to water down the concept of rights by dealing with them in an arbitrary manner is just counterproductive.

Describe the first two categories of hostiles in a war zone and under what authority they should be dealt with and then we can discuss the third or fourth or...

Re: Habeas Corpus is NOT a right which a government possesses control over,

Here I disagree (somewhat). Habeas corpus only exists because of legal porcesses themselves. Unlike rights to free speech, religion etc. it is is indeed a product of legal processing. And the Constitution itself does allow Habeas Corpus to be suspended by the president.
Before anyone flames me, I do agree with the poster who said "There is no third way". The detainees should be treated for what they are: prisoners of war, with all the protections thereof.

Link Congressional/Presidential health care to Universal Health Care.  No elected official should have better health care paid with public dollars than does the American with the least access.

#1 Priority - cut off all military funding for Iraq -except for the safe return of our troops.

Tom

If believing in laws of nature is "mystical" then all of science is hopeless mumbo-jumbo too.

Other than sticking out your toung and saying "blah," exactly what does this mean? Do you happen to know anything about philosophy of science or philosophy of religion for that matter? Could you suggest sociological reasons why religion is comfortable source of metaphysics for those who don't have the capacity to understand complex phenomena?

Assuming that science is mumbo-jumbo, I assume you walk to work (as a manual laborer) and use smoke signals and Morse code to enter your posts on the internet? I take it you don't LIKE having someone challenge your superstition. That doesn't make it any less a superstition.

Note: this is a response to all who questioned my allegations that habeas corpus is not a natural right, or not a right that the government can rightfully control. My choice of response here was purely arbitrary, and meant for all who fit into the two cases mentioned above.

Few men desire liberty; the majority are satisfied with a just master.

Gaius Sallustius Crispus, Histories, IV.

It is amazing just how little most Americans really know about the US Constitution. This is the only sceptre of legitimacy which the government can operate under. Politicians have lied, politicians do lie, and politicians will lie. Most persons who have power bestowed upon them will use their power in an attempt to acquire more power. A personal understanding of the Constitution is imperative for America to remain free. It does not bother me if you feel that my interpretation of the Constitution is improper, but only if the allegation can be backed up by a sensible reading of the text.

Habeas Corpus is mentioned once in the Constitution:

The United States Constitution; Article. I. Section. 9. Clause 2:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

I am not here to debate the reality of Natural Rights, it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Natural Rights were considered to be incontestably axiomatic by the nation's founders, and that Natural Rights were also considered to be without the power of the State, unless they had been consciously given up to the state by the individual citizenry. Presently, I am willing to yield none of my natural rights to the government; they have proved themselves corrupted, and willing to steal liberty they have not a right to own. Obviously they are not to be trusted with even a temporary control of human rights.

Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.

James Madison, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 13, 1798.

The Constitution defines habeas corpus as a Privilege, and this privilege belongs to ALL humans, not to the state. Article I describes the powers and duties of the Legislature, not the Executive, therefore, the executive has not a right to suspend habeas corpus, under any circumstance, only the legislature can, and then only in extreme situations: "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it". Do not attempt to exaggerate the circumstances of September 11, 2001, enabling it to be described as an "invasion". It was one blind-side shot by 20 determined zealots lucky enough to have implemented it during an Executive Administration so arrogant, derelict and ignorant, that they failed in their primary duty: defense of the homeland. 20 guys, even given that they can rationally be defined as "terrorists", does not an invasion make, and it certainly does not fall under the category of "rebellion" either.

Mr. Bush committed an impeachable offense when he claimed authority over habeas corpus. Congress was derelict with their enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, not only because we are not currently under a state of either rebellion or invasion, but also because the legislation did not "suspend" habeas corpus, it took it from some humans forever. Defend or ignore this tyranny if you so desire, but understand, it is tyranny, and unacceptably obscene to many Americans. By defending or ignoring it, you imperil both your party and America. Attempts to ground this tyranny in the Constitution will not be acceptable to those of us who value the rights of humans. Again, this is non-negotiable, it does not sit upon a bargaining table. Which side are you on?

Finally, I quote Thomas Jefferson, who posited that habeas corpus need not even be suspended during rebellions or invasions:

"Why suspend the habeas corpus in insurrections and rebellions? The parties who may be arrested, may be charged instantly with a well-defined crime; of course, the judge will remand them. If the public safety requires that the government should have a man imprisoned on less probable testimony, in those than in other emergencies, let him be taken and tried, retaken and retried, while the necessity continues, only giving him redress against the government, for damages. Examine the history of England. See how few of the cases of the suspension of the habeas corpus law, have been worthy of that suspension . They have been either real treason, wherein the parties might as well have been charged at once, or sham plots, where it was shameful they should ever have been suspected. Yet for the few cases wherein the suspension of the habeas corpus has done real good, that operation is now become habitual, and the minds of the nation almost prepared to live under its constant suspension."

--Thomas Jefferson letter to James Madison, from Paris, July 31, 1788
quoted from "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson"
Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh, editors)
20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04.
Volume VII, pp 97,98

Thank you for looking up the constitution and reminding me that my memory was faulty (I remembered "war" where the constitution says "Rebellion or Invasion" a much narrower set).

As to your notion of natural rights, I appreciate that the founders used these terms, but they are entirely bizarre in modern language. The constitution also says

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Everyone knows the "twenty dollars" in this quote is anachronistic.  So, too, is the term, "natural rights."  It worked well in the 1780s.  It doesn't anymore.  So, please, don't stick us with mysterious out of date concepts that get us more trouble than they are worth.

Again, an overly broad generalisation; "everyone knows". I know one person who attempted to use this amendment as a method of escaping a small claims court. He was informed that if he was the losing party, the extra court costs of the jury trial would be assessed against him. I am not sure if the Federal Courts have bound this over to state court systems via incorporation through the fourteenth amendment though, or if only some have, and it is not considered to be final yet.

Possibly, you could provide case law citations to substantiate your allegation that the US Constitution's Seventh Amendment is an anachronism, and simply because of that, no longer has the force of law behind it? I am curious. So far, you have only offered proof that you are an equivocator of liberty.

"I do esteem individual liberty above everything.
What is a nation for, but to secure
the maximum of liberty to every individual?
What do you think a nation is?
a big business concern?"

D.H. Lawrence

...and in any case, there is nothing in the Constitution that permits Congress to pass a law suspending habeas corpus. The Military Commissions Act is unconstitutional.

Dear Psuedo,

Belief in the mysterious is not necessary for morality. Quoting Lawrence only makes you pretentious. I never suggested that the Seventh Amendment was anachronistic. And, I will allow that only informed people know (I do not assume that all judges are informed) that the reference to twenty dollars is anachronistic. If you think it is not, try getting a jury trial in federal court on a matter involving $20. The words are read "in context" even by strict constructionist judges. You may recall that the US didn't even have a central bank at the time of the writing of the Constitution. So you might have to look up the meaning of the term, in context.

Anachronism refers to out of date concepts such as the term "twenty dollars" in the Seventh Amendment or the term "natural rights." Nature gives you the right to die (not at time of your choosing). I prefer better quality rights.

Claiming the Seventh Amendment is an anachronism, and therefore invalid, is a defense that Alberto Gonzales uses to justify the abrogation of the Geneva Conventions. Nice company you keep...

At the risk of my being pretentious:

"Bist du eine neue Kraft und ein neues Recht? Eine erste Bewegung? Ein aus sich rollendes Rad? Kannst du auch Sterne zwingen, dass sie um dich sich drehen?

Ach, es giebt so viel Luesternheit nach Hoehe! Es giebt so viel Kraempfe der Ehrgeizigen! Zeige mir, dass du keiner der Luesternen und Ehrgeizigen bist!

Ach, es giebt so viel grosse Gedanken, die thun nicht mehr als ein Blasebalg: sie blasen auf und machen leerer.

Frei nennst du dich? Deinen herrschenden Gedanken will ich hoeren und nicht, dass du einem Joche entronnen bist.

Bist du ein Solcher, der einem Joche entrinnen durfte? Es giebt Manchen, der seinen letzten Werth wegwarf, als er seine Dienstbarkeit wegwarf.

Frei wovon? Was schiert das Zarathustra! Hell aber soll mir dein Auge kuenden: frei wozu?"

--Friedrich Nietzsche, "Also sprach Zarathustra; Ein Buch fuer Alle und Keinen"; Erster Theil, Vom Wege des Schaffenden

Re: Do you happen to know anything about philosophy of science or philosophy of religion for that matter?

Well, I have a degree in physics so I am not exactly ignorant about science or mathematics.

Re: Assuming that science is mumbo-jumbo

Did you read what I wrote? I do not assume science is mumbo-jumbo. That would apparently be your position if you dismiss the concept of natural law as "mysticism". Do you also desconstruct the axioms of gemotery and the postulates of arithmetic?

Re; I take it you don't LIKE having someone challenge your superstition.

My "superstition" is that human reason (and more broadly, human perception in all its aspects) can actually tell us something useful about the world. Maybe even something "true", if