A wake up call

[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

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

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

A difference that makes no difference is no difference. You try to make a distinction here only because you are hoist by your own petard.

Stan Shannon wrote:

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.

Curious, some people - those lying professors of mine for instance - would say that the most important function, the defining function as a matter of fact, of a legislative body is legislating. How silly not to have discovered the revealed truth.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Well, fine, he resigned before being impeached.

Yes. And that's a difference that makes a difference. See how it works, now?

Stan Shannon wrote:

Well, I'm bringing them into the discussion because it applies

Occam's razor says that you brought them in because of you made a mistake - just like with Nixon's impeachment.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

To completely unrelated issues.

Presidential power is the issue. Just because you approved of Bush's abuses of his Constitutional powers and disapprove of Obama's doesn't make the issue any different.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Just because you approved of Bush's abuses of his Constitutional powers and disapprove of Obama's doesn't make the issue any different

Either senility is catching up with you, or you are just incapable of intellectual honesty.

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:

You try to make a distinction here only because you are hoist by your own petard.

No, I make the distinction because there is more than one intentional separation of power in our form of government. One is expressed by the body of the consitution itself, the other is expressed by the 10th amendment. It is a very real, and very important difference.

Oakman wrote:

of a legislative body is legislating

And oversight of the other two branches.

Oakman wrote:

And that's a difference that makes a difference. See how it works, now?

No, that pretty much defines a distinction without a difference.

Oakman wrote:

Occam's razor says that you brought them in because of you made a mistake

No, because, any one who wishes to question the authority of the president to ignore constituional constraints on power should be honest enough to acknowledge it when it occurs in the other branches of government.

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.

modified on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:30 PM

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

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."

And the law includes the role of commander in chief be exercised by the executive branch.

Oakman wrote:

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?

It gives them oversight over the law only. They have no power to impeach or demand investigations into the other branches. They were intended to be the most limited of the three branches. The founders intentionally gave most actual power to the branch most immediately answerable (or so they thought) to the people.

Oakman wrote:

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

I'll consider your inability to respond to it a white flag on your part.

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:

you are just incapable of intellectual honesty.

Yes, Troy, whatever you say.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

One is expressed by the body of the consitution itself, the other is expressed by the 10th amendment.

That is certainly in the running for being one of the most wrong-headed things I have ever heard. Give it up, Stan, you've dug yourself into a hole, and you can't get out.

Stan Shannon wrote:

No, because, any one who wishes to question the authority of the president to ignore constituional constraints on power should be honest enough to acknowledge it when it occurs in the other branches of government

But since, unless your ADD is acting up ;) , you can remember that I agree that the Supreme Court has abused its powers, to point it out as if it refutes my listing of those times that Presidents before Bush abused their powers seems a little confused. But, perhaps if you had read - and understood - the OP and all that followed from it, you wouldn't have been so eager to argue that I was wrong in saying that Bush was not the first to do so.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

And the law includes the role of commander in chief be exercised by the executive branch.

Yes? . . .Are you under the impression that there's some magic in that phrase that makes the Supreme Court's or the Congress's powers go away? Commander in Chief is not a synonym for above the law. Nor is that role free of the check and balance of another branch - it is given to Congress to declare war, the president is, quite obviously, at their beck and call in this matter. The President has a number of duties delegated to him. If somehow you think that one of his responsibilities carries with it the right to scrap the Constitution, then most assuredly, both of the other branches can find justification as well. And, in case you're wondering, that includes the tenth Amendment.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

That is certainly in the running for being one of the most wrong-headed things I have ever heard. Give it up, Stan, you've dug yourself into a hole, and you can't get out.

Jon, the 10th amendment is about separation of power. That is all it is about. That is precisely how it has been interpreted through out AMerican history. It is not some kind of affirmation of libertrianism.

Oakman wrote:

I agree that the Supreme Court has abused its powers,

Yet you support it when it agrees with your views. Yet, if you notice, the evil Bush is now living harmlessly in Texas utterly un-prosecuted by either the courts or the congress. He left power. Why did he leave power? Becuase he was elected and he term of service expired. On the other hand, those on the courts hold onto their power to the very last moments of life. So I ask you, which branch is most dangerous to our true liberties - the guy who 'violated the constitution' (which obviously never happend) to protect the nation and then left office, or the guys who violate the constitution to promote their social agenda and never leave office short of death?

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 not some kind of affirmation of libertrianism.

You must be hearing voices again, Stan. No such claim was ever made. I simply maintain that as an amendment, it has just as much validity as the rest of the Constitution.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Yet you support it when it agrees with your views

You must be mistaking me for yourself - you are the one who was all atwitter over who the supreme court nominees were going to be. Apparently, Justices that agree with your views are extremely important to you whereas I really don't care that much.

Stan Shannon wrote:

So I ask you, which branch is most dangerous to our true liberties - the guy who 'violated the constitution' (which obviously never happend) to protect the nation and then left office, or the guys who violate the constitution to promote their social agenda and never leave office short of death?

All of the above. Any violation of the Constitution by any of the three branches is an egregious violation of trust and of oath. It appears that once again, you are arguing that there are degrees of absolutes. Why don't you stick with "little bit pregnant." Work on the tough ones later.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface