What’s unconstitutional about fascism?
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Although, you still seem to have problems comprehending 'equal powers'. Do tell, Why don't you elucidate? I would love to learn why it's okay for the previous Prez to ignore the courts at will, and not this one - or perhaps that's not covered under "equal powers."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I would love to learn why it's okay for the previous Prez to ignore the courts at will, and not this one - or perhaps that's not covered under "equal powers."
Because the courts have always given the executive branch wide latitude in how they defend the nation, and because, as anyone with half a brain shoudl know, the role of commander in chief cannot be reduced to purely legal reasoning and restraint. Saving people's lives is more important than obeying every possible interpretation of every possible law. The details of what was done and why can be worked out later by the congress and the courts. The system was designed purposefully to work that way. However, the states and individuals can bring cases which the courts can simply not ignore without acknowledging that they no longer serve the US constitution in even the most superficial way. That has nothing to do with the executive branch.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
he did spend twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law.
12 years! Wow! I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work...
Having no groundbreaking revelatory insights worthy of publication does not preclude his possessing a deeper understanding of U.S. Constitutional issues than you could ever hope to have. As far as intellect goes, I'll take his books, lectures, and body of work—including his tenure as editor of the Harvard Law Review—against your extensive Soapbox ranting any day of the week.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
he did spend twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law.
12 years! Wow! I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
It's not enough that he went to law school, or taught law, he needs to have published original groundbreaking work to be considered knowledgeable. Riiight. So are you trying to convey an underlying message that nobody should take you seriously, having never published anything of significance (much less "original groundbreaking work") in, well, anything, ostensibly never having taught anything at a university level, and never having had a formal education in most of the subjects you deign to talk about (history, politics, law, etc)? :laugh:
- F
-
Oakman wrote:
I heard one bimbo on MSNBC promote Obama to Constitutional Professor
According to Wikipedia, he did spend twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law. I reckon that pretty much makes him a "Constitutional Professor", at least for that period of time, and in bimbo-speak. I'm not disagreeing with your other points, just offering that small clarification.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
he did spend twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law.
12 years! Wow! I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote: 12 years! Wow! I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work... You know, if you are going to play David to Obama's Goliath, it behooves you to make sure you have stones in your sling. I was wrong, the bimbo was right. End of story.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote: 12 years! Wow! I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work... You know, if you are going to play David to Obama's Goliath, it behooves you to make sure you have stones in your sling. I was wrong, the bimbo was right. End of story.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
You know, if you are going to play David to Obama's Goliath, it behooves you to make sure you have stones in your sling. I was wrong, the bimbo was right. End of story.
You didn't know he was a law professor? It was in all the news. The question is, what did he actually accomplish. Alas, as with everything else in Obama's previous life - not much.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work...
Having no groundbreaking revelatory insights worthy of publication does not preclude his possessing a deeper understanding of U.S. Constitutional issues than you could ever hope to have. As far as intellect goes, I'll take his books, lectures, and body of work—including his tenure as editor of the Harvard Law Review—against your extensive Soapbox ranting any day of the week.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Having no groundbreaking revelatory insights worthy of publication does not preclude his possessing a deeper understanding of U.S. Constitutional issues than you could ever hope to have. As far as intellect goes, I'll take his books, lectures, and body of work—including his tenure as editor of the Harvard Law Review—against your extensive Soapbox ranting any day of the week.
Fine with me if you think a mediocre academic career qualifies one for the presidency.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
It's not enough that he went to law school, or taught law, he needs to have published original groundbreaking work to be considered knowledgeable. Riiight. So are you trying to convey an underlying message that nobody should take you seriously, having never published anything of significance (much less "original groundbreaking work") in, well, anything, ostensibly never having taught anything at a university level, and never having had a formal education in most of the subjects you deign to talk about (history, politics, law, etc)? :laugh:
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
It's not enough that he went to law school, or taught law, he needs to have published original groundbreaking work to be considered knowledgeable. Riiight. So are you trying to convey an underlying message that nobody should take you seriously, having never published anything of significance (much less "original groundbreaking work") in, well, anything, ostensibly never having taught anything at a university level, and never having had a formal education in most of the subjects you deign to talk about (history, politics, law, etc)?
You're justifying Obama's qualifications to be president by comparing him to me? that is actually pretty damned scary.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
It's not enough that he went to law school, or taught law, he needs to have published original groundbreaking work to be considered knowledgeable. Riiight. So are you trying to convey an underlying message that nobody should take you seriously, having never published anything of significance (much less "original groundbreaking work") in, well, anything, ostensibly never having taught anything at a university level, and never having had a formal education in most of the subjects you deign to talk about (history, politics, law, etc)?
You're justifying Obama's qualifications to be president by comparing him to me? that is actually pretty damned scary.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You're justifying Obama's qualifications to be president by comparing him to me? that is actually pretty damned scary.
Uh huh. What does him being president have anything to do with the qualifications necessary to justify a knowledge of constitutional law? See, it sounds like you're saying that unless you're actually important, you don't really need an education on the subjects you decide to talk about - which fits perfectly with the idea that you think waaaaay too much of your opinions.
- F
-
Oakman wrote:
You know, if you are going to play David to Obama's Goliath, it behooves you to make sure you have stones in your sling. I was wrong, the bimbo was right. End of story.
You didn't know he was a law professor? It was in all the news. The question is, what did he actually accomplish. Alas, as with everything else in Obama's previous life - not much.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
You know, if you are going to play David to Obama's Goliath, it behooves you to make sure you have stones in your sling. I was wrong, the bimbo was right. End of story.
You didn't know he was a law professor? It was in all the news. The question is, what did he actually accomplish. Alas, as with everything else in Obama's previous life - not much.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The question is, what did he actually accomplish.
I would imagine he actually taught law students, presumably about constitutional law. Given his demeanor and rhetorical skill, I'm quite sure he was an excellent teacher, and being an excellent teacher for twelve years is one hell of an accomplishment in my book.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Having no groundbreaking revelatory insights worthy of publication does not preclude his possessing a deeper understanding of U.S. Constitutional issues than you could ever hope to have. As far as intellect goes, I'll take his books, lectures, and body of work—including his tenure as editor of the Harvard Law Review—against your extensive Soapbox ranting any day of the week.
Fine with me if you think a mediocre academic career qualifies one for the presidency.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fine with me if you think a mediocre academic career qualifies one for the presidency.
You seemed to be fine with Bush's academic qualifications. And you seem to think your poor academic career qualifies you to pontificate on all things political and governmental.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Fascinating[^] - creditor pushes back. Now, isn't Obama a Constituitional scholar? The answer is, "Yes, or so we've been told". If so, he's willfully violating the Constituition. Isn't that an impeachable offense?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Wait, what's that about an "impeachable offense"? Didn't you get the memo? I understand why you're upset, but on the other hand I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of Obama's job is to make sure that for example at Chrysler, you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. We don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering. Really, what we need to do here is get things right in the future, as opposed looking at what we got wrong in the past. :laugh:
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
-
Wait, what's that about an "impeachable offense"? Didn't you get the memo? I understand why you're upset, but on the other hand I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of Obama's job is to make sure that for example at Chrysler, you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. We don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering. Really, what we need to do here is get things right in the future, as opposed looking at what we got wrong in the past. :laugh:
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
we need to look forward
to what exactly?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
we need to look forward
to what exactly?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
to what exactly?
I'm not quite sure. Obama keeps saying at and the only thing I can think of is looking forward to a future where Presidents aren't tried even if there's evidence they've committed a crime.
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt