A wake up call

[Mike Gaskey]

kmg365 wrote:

What's your opinion?

fucking disgusting, both the woman and her opinion.

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.

[kmg365]

Mike Gaskey wrote:

disgusting, both the woman and her opinion

Unfortunately her opinion is shared by others. My take-away is it's a free-for-all. Law selectively applied, according to situation with regards to who you are and your political inclinations, race, economic status… in other words lawlessness. This opinion held by a top juror of the United States Supreme court.

[Synaptrik]

Which is precisely why National referendums to impede state decisions such as Gay Marriage, and Medical Marijuana are illegal as well. Also, you have to realize that this was all being setup by Bush while conservatives defended his abuse of power, setting the stage for Obama. Backlash.

This statement is false

[Mike Gaskey]

Synaptrik wrote:

you have to realize that this was all being setup by Bush while conservatives defended his abuse of power, setting the stage for Obama. Backlash.

wrong, it was set up (as you say) as far back, if not further, as Teddy Roosevelt and it is damn well time to stop it.

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.

[Oakman]

Mike Gaskey wrote:

wrong, it was set up (as you say) as far back, if not further, as Teddy Roosevelt and it is damn well time to stop it.

Jefferson was the first president to ignore the Constitution.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Mike Gaskey wrote:

A round of applause for Texas

I sympathise with most of Governor Perry's efforts, but I do get a kick out of his idea that the feds should continue to fund lots of ear-marked projects in Texas, just not have any say in how those projects are administered. If he had Texas-sized balls, he'd be looking to repeal 16th Amendment. Then the states could run their projects their way.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Mike Gaskey]

Oakman wrote:

repeal 16th Amendment

it was ratified?

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.

[Oakman]

Mike Gaskey wrote:

it was ratified?

That's one tactic - but it might be better to go for a straightforward repeal

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Synaptrik]

Social programs yes. Current abuse of Executive authority I still attribute to support of Bush's abuses.

This statement is false

[Oakman]

Synaptrik wrote:

Current abuse of Executive authority I still attribute to support of Bush's abuses.

What about Thomas Jefferson's ignoring the limits set by Congress when he made the Louisiana Purchase? What about Nixon's wiretapping of American journalists? What about FDR imprisoning 1,000's of citizens because of their ethnicity? What about Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus? Or his imprisoning a state legislature for no reason other than he suspected they were about to vote for secession?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Synaptrik wrote:

Bush while conservatives defended his abuse of power,

He didn't abuse the appropriate constitutional power of the presidency. If he had, congress would have dealt with it. End of story. The presidedent is constitutionally answerable to congress, not the judiciary.

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]

Finally...

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]

Oakman wrote:

What about Thomas Jefferson's ignoring the limits set by Congress when he made the Louisiana Purchase?

Oakman wrote:

What about FDR imprisoning 1,000's of citizens because of their ethnicity?

Oakman wrote:

What about Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus? Or his imprisoning a state legislature for no reason other than he suspected they were about to vote for secession?

So? What about it? IT is congress's job to deal with that, if they don't than it is approved.

Oakman wrote:

What about Nixon's wiretapping of American journalists?

If I remember my history correctly, he was impeached. What about the supreme court legalizing abortion and removing the 10th amendment rights of state and local governments to to outlaw flag burning and sodomy? Why isn't that an abuse of constitutional power? Is the supreme court above the law?

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]

Stan Shannon wrote:

IT is congress's job to deal with that, if they don't than it is approved.

Which means that Mike's all wet. He keeps talking as if there's a Constitution written down in black and white for everyone to read and that everyone, even Obama is supposed to regard it as the law of the land. But you say that as long as he stays on the good side of Pelosi and reid he can do anything he wants? How wonderful - for him. How mistaken all my professors were.

Stan Shannon wrote:

If I remember my history correctly, he was impeached.

As usual, you don't and he wasn't.

Stan Shannon wrote:

What about the supreme court legalizing abortion and removing the 10th amendment rights of state and local governments to to outlaw flag burning and sodomy?

Once again you make me question your reading ability - the subject under discussion is Presidential abuse of executive power. Or, in case you are just confused by words like "Executive," the Supreme Court is not the Executive branch of government, and the Supremes are not the President. Maybe you should reread that last sentence a few times. Until you understand it.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

If he had, congress would have dealt with it. End of story.

Why is it that you are the only person in the United States who believes that to be true? Can you cite, just to humor me, one recognized Constitutional scholar who claims that the Judiciary is not a co-equal branch of government or doesn't have the right to determine matters of law? Why are you so sure that the President can do whatever he wishes and unless he is impeached he is within his Constitutional rights, while you claim the the Supreme Court can not do as they choose and, unless they are impeached by the Congress, make that the law of the land?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Finally...

But you said it's a waste of time. and the money of the taxpayers of Texas, I would presume. After all everything that Obama is doing is legal unless Pelosi and Reid object - that's what you just told me. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Can you cite, just to humor me, one recognized Constitutional scholar who claims that the Judiciary is not a co-equal branch of government or doesn't have the right to determine matters of law?

It is co-equal. Which part of 'co-equal' are you confused by?

Oakman wrote:

Why are you so sure that the President can do whatever he wishes and unless he is impeached he is within his Constitutional rights, while you claim the the Supreme Court can not do as they choose and, unless they are impeached by the Congress, make that the law of the land?

Because congress is empowered with the responsibility to provide oversight of the other two branches. They, and only they, have the power to impeach, as the most democratic and directly representative branch of government. There is nothing in the constitution formally restricting the powers of the commander in chief to defend the country - beyond getting permission and funding from congress. It no where says that decisions to defend the nation have to be evaluated for conformance to judicial decisions. Otherwise there would be no reason to even have a commander in chief - we would just let the courts deleberate on how to respond to the incoming missles.

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]

Oakman wrote:

Which means that Mike's all wet.

No, it doesn't. This has nothing to do with the 10th amendment - that is an entirely differenct separation of power issue.

Oakman wrote:

He keeps talking as if there's a Constitution written down in black and w

It is.

Oakman wrote:

But you say that as long as he stays on the good side of Pelosi and reid he can do anything he wants? How wonderful - for him.

Yes, the constitutions makes them responsible for dealing with excesses of the executive branch. They are to blame if nothing is done. That is about the most important part of their job.

Oakman wrote:

How mistaken all my professors were.

No, they were just lying to you.

Oakman wrote:

As usual, you don't and he wasn't

Well, fine, he resigned before being impeached. :rolleyes:

Oakman wrote:

Once again you make me question your reading ability - the subject under discussion is Presidential abuse of executive power. Or, in case you are just confused by words like "Executive," the Supreme Court is not the Executive branch of government, and the Supremes are not the President. Maybe you should reread that last sentence a few times. Until you understand it.

Well, I'm bringing them into the discussion because it applies. There is far more historic legal precedent for giving the president latitude to defend American society than there is to give the courts latitude in directly restructuring that society to suit their personal preferences.

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]

Oakman wrote:

But you said it's a waste of time.

When?

Oakman wrote:

and the money of the taxpayers of Texas, I would presume. After all everything that Obama is doing is legal unless Pelosi and Reid object - that's what you just told me.

To completely unrelated issues.

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]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Which part of 'co-equal' are you confused by?

I guess the part that says "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made. . ." I kept looking for the provision that said "except in the case of the President."

Stan Shannon wrote:

Because congress is empowered with the responsibility to provide oversight of the other two branches

Since the Congress passes "the Laws of the United States," and both the President and the Congress are responsible for "Treaties made, or which shall be made" it would seem to me that some provision for the tripartite check and balance so often talked about for the last 225 odd years, was set up to give the Supreme Court oversight responsibilities - or hadn't you noticed?

Stan Shannon wrote:

It no where says that decisions to defend the nation have to be evaluated for conformance to judicial decisions.

Nor is there any clause forbidding him from ordering the imprisonment of the Congress. Nonetheless, it would be against the law - even if the President thought it was a case of National Security.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Otherwise there would be no reason to even have a commander in chief - we would just let the courts deleberate on how to respond to the incoming missles.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: If that's your strongest argument, I'd suggest you get out a white flag.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface