Hussain Obama... [Archive] - SpursTalk.com Forums

Yonivore

10-24-2007, 04:50 PM

I'm not joking. I'm truly curious about why you're this concerned about a Presidential candidate declining to follow a 65-years-old symbolic tradition.
Because it demonstrates a lack of regard for the laws of this country.

36 U.S.C. § 301(b)(1) states, in pertinent part, "During a rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart."

Subsection (b)(2) provides: "When the flag is not displayed, those present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed there.

According to the website usflag.org, 36 U.S.C. § 171 contained the same provisions.

I recognize the act of putting your hand over your heart is not compulsory, under the law, but I think a sincere respect for the law -- something we should all want in a president -- would dictate that Obama either do so or explain why he refuses.

He's also quit wearing the traditional American flag pin on his lapel. Something about protesting the Iraq war.

If he's consciously not paying proper respect to the flag during the anthem, I have a problem with it. Many men have died to keep that flag flying over this greatest nation in the history of the world.

Wild Cobra

10-24-2007, 04:51 PM

I'm not joking. I'm truly curious about why you're this concerned about a Presidential candidate declining to follow a 65-years-old symbolic tradition.
I don't even know where to start explaining such a thing that shouldn't have to be explained, so I won't. Do me a favor. Move to another country.

Spurminator

10-24-2007, 05:01 PM

Because it demonstrates a lack of regard for the laws of this country.

36 U.S.C. § 301(b)(1) states, in pertinent part, "During a rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart."

Subsection (b)(2) provides: "When the flag is not displayed, those present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed there.

According to the website usflag.org, 36 U.S.C. § 171 contained the same provisions.

I recognize the act of putting your hand over your heart is not compulsory, under the law, but I think a sincere respect for the law -- something we should all want in a president -- would dictate that Obama either do so or explain why he refuses.

That "law" was a symbolic and meaningless Congressional act created to differentiate ourselves from Nazi Germany.

I would like to think we have moved past the point where symbolic gestures are indicators of one's Patriotism. But I guess when partisan opportunism arises...

He's also quit wearing the traditional American flag pin on his lapel. Something about protesting the Iraq war.

No, it was about symbolic patriotism.

Many men have died to keep that flag flying over this greatest nation in the history of the world.

They died for a flag????

You sir, are greatly undermining what our brave soldiers have died for.

Spurminator

10-24-2007, 05:02 PM

I don't even know where to start explaining such a thing that shouldn't have to be explained, so I won't. Do me a favor. Move to another country.

You can't explain it.

Spurminator

10-24-2007, 05:03 PM

Here's how you show respect to the National Anthem and the brave men who died for our country.

You be still and keep your god damned mouth shut. Why isn't that enough?

Wild Cobra

10-24-2007, 05:05 PM

You can't explain it.
I'll give you one of several reasons.

The president is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. In the military, it is expected to "Lead by Example." If this is intentional contempt to render the proper honors to the flag, he has no right being the president. All military personnel are expected to render the honors.

My God man. He's running for president. Isn't that enough?

Yonivore

10-24-2007, 05:07 PM

Here's how you show respect to the National Anthem and the brave men who died for our country.

You be still and keep your god damned mouth shut. Why isn't that enough?
Because better men than any of us have established a tradition and have lobbied their Congress to enact a law that proscribes how you should show respect for the flag during the playing of our national anthem.

Why isn't that enough for you or Hussein?

Spurminator

10-24-2007, 05:10 PM

He's not military personnel yet, and as COC it would be his right to revise the "proper honors" if he saw fit.

Spurminator

10-24-2007, 05:12 PM

Because better men than any of us have established a tradition and have lobbied their Congress to enact a law that proscribes how you should show respect for the flag during the playing of our national anthem.

Why isn't that enough for you or Hussein?

Federal dictates on behavior in front of National symbols. You sound very Libertarian.

FromWayDowntown

10-24-2007, 05:12 PM

David Robinson never put his hand over his heart during the national anthems played before basketball games; neither does Gregg Popovich.

I can see the distinction, but I don't think a refusal to put a hand over one's heart creates any sort of presumption concerning one's patriotism. I'd hate to think that we're more concerned with devotion to symbolic gestures than substantive proof of one's patriotism.

Wild Cobra

10-24-2007, 05:18 PM

FromWayDowntown

10-24-2007, 05:20 PM

Again, it doesn't matter to me how most people treat such a thing. Anyone applying for the job of Commander in Chief MUST render the honors, period!

But why? I realize that your unlikely to vote for Obama anyway, but consider a candidate whose policy choices were more to your liking but who had also been captured on film with his hands by his side while, presumably, the National Anthem was played or the Pledge of Allegiance said.

Is symbolism REALLY more important than the policy choice?

If it was your favored candidate, would that photograph really make you change your vote?

Wild Cobra

10-24-2007, 05:28 PM

But why? I realize that your unlikely to vote for Obama anyway, but consider a candidate whose policy choices were more to your liking but who had also been captured on film with his hands by his side while, presumably, the National Anthem was played or the Pledge of Allegiance said.

Is symbolism REALLY more important than the policy choice?

If it was your favored candidate, would that photograph really make you change your vote?
You just don't ignore some traditions. They eyes of the world see such things. What is it interpreted as?

Yes, if he was my favorite, he no longer would be.

I would be a Ron Paul supporter if he had a different outlook on the Iraq situation. I agree with everything I heard him say but two things. His statements about his actions should he be president regarding Iraq is a complete deal breaker with me.

clambake

10-24-2007, 05:34 PM

You just don't ignore some traditions. They eyes of the world see such things. What is it interpreted as?

i guess it has escaped your attention what the world thinks about the US.

but i do understand your growing anxiety.

do you think these useless attacks will help? the gop has nothing to offer anymore. i can smell the panic.

Wild Cobra

10-24-2007, 05:47 PM

i guess it has escaped your attention what the world thinks about the US.

but i do understand your growing anxiety.

do you think these useless attacks will help? the gop has nothing to offer anymore. i can smell the panic.
I cannot believe so many people ar defending such a thing. I only listed two of many reasons. I'm not going to make a list. If you are OK with a president disrespecting American tradition, then I just don't know what to say. I wouldn't expect him to do differently as president as he does as a candidate.

My God. Hillary is know for hating the military, but she rendered the respects to the flag.

The leader of the free world must respect the basic traditions and symbols of the free world.

clambake

10-24-2007, 05:53 PM

so, our guy goes into Iraq for clearly bogus, fabricated, deliberately misleading reasons.......kinda like saddam went into kuwait...... and as long as he salutes the flag it's all good?

i think he should salute every flag he's given out. he owes america about 4000 salutes.

Mr. Peabody

10-24-2007, 05:54 PM

Because it demonstrates a lack of regard for the laws of this country.

36 U.S.C. § 301(b)(1) states, in pertinent part, "During a rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart."

Subsection (b)(2) provides: "When the flag is not displayed, those present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed there.

According to the website usflag.org, 36 U.S.C. § 171 contained the same provisions.

I recognize the act of putting your hand over your heart is not compulsory, under the law, but I think a sincere respect for the law -- something we should all want in a president -- would dictate that Obama either do so or explain why he refuses.

He's also quit wearing the traditional American flag pin on his lapel. Something about protesting the Iraq war.

If he's consciously not paying proper respect to the flag during the anthem, I have a problem with it. Many men have died to keep that flag flying over this greatest nation in the history of the world.

It doesn't appear that he has a problem with putting his hand over his heart because he has been photographed doing so in the past. I would guess he just didn't think of it.

clambake

10-24-2007, 05:58 PM

It doesn't appear that he has a problem with putting his hand over his heart because he has been photographed doing so in the past. I would guess he just didn't think of it.
"he's a part-time commie" will be the response from your statement.

can't you just smell the fear?

George Gervin's Afro

10-24-2007, 06:00 PM

i enjoy republicans establishing what is patriotic or respectful and then attacking dems for it..

hey if he promises not to get us into unecesary wars i will vote for him.

PixelPusher

10-24-2007, 08:38 PM

Symbolism over substance thread.

Yonivore

10-24-2007, 08:58 PM

It doesn't appear that he has a problem with putting his hand over his heart because he has been photographed doing so in the past. I would guess he just didn't think of it.
That may well be.

ChumpDumper

10-24-2007, 09:04 PM

This is dumber and more disingenuous than the 9/11 conspiracy threads.

TLWisfoine

10-25-2007, 04:05 AM

http://www.newshounds.us/Bush_Hand.jpg

Ooops!!! Impeach him!!!

RandomGuy

10-25-2007, 08:23 AM

Now I have in the past refused to make fun of senator Obama's middle name. I have defended him against those who point out any Islamic characteristics of him. Now I must wonder. I can accept his reasons for not wearing the lapel pin of the flag, but he has gone too far. He refuses to render the proper respect of our flag during the National Anthem, and he wants to be president?

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Obama.jpg

ah yes, a picture out of context, like that means anything other than someone decided to forward it.

(shrugs)

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/G/_/bush_flipping_finger_animated.gif

That is a fun game.

RandomGuy

10-25-2007, 08:24 AM

http://www.newshounds.us/Bush_Hand.jpg

Ooops!!! Impeach him!!!

Hey man, he really goes from the gut.

Or maybe he is one of our reptilian overlords and that is really where his heart is. (reference: a partictularly wierd bit of UFO lore about aliens)

Spurminator

10-25-2007, 09:10 AM

But he's got such a big heart, his hand is still technically over it.

JoeChalupa

10-25-2007, 09:15 AM

I think this is a simple case of someone not putting their hand over their heart during the National Anthem.

I agree. Hell, go to any sporting event and you'll see hundreds, if not thousands who do not put their hand over their heart let alone keep their damn mouths shut for a few minutes.

RandomGuy

10-25-2007, 09:26 AM

I agree. Hell, go to any sporting event and you'll see hundreds, if not thousands who do not put their hand over their heart let alone keep their damn mouths shut for a few minutes.

How do you know the nation anthem was playing at the moment the picture was taken?

I must have missed the accompanying sound clip. I am sure Cobra in his rush to be intellectually honest posted somewhere, but I just didn't see it right?

(shrugs)

How do you know that he didn't put his hand over his heart when the music started 2 seconds later?

Hard to tell from just one cherry-picked picture, isn't it?

JoeChalupa

10-25-2007, 09:31 AM

How do you know the nation anthem was playing at the moment the picture was taken?

I must have missed the accompanying sound clip. I am sure Cobra in his rush to be intellectually honest posted somewhere, but I just didn't see it right?

(shrugs)

How do you know that he didn't put his hand over his heart when the music started 2 seconds later?

Hard to tell from just one cherry-picked picture, isn't it?

True. My point is that I see many, many others who do not even stop talking or eating nachos during the National Anthem.

JoeChalupa

10-25-2007, 09:31 AM

Oh, and I'm a Obama supporter.

Spurminator

10-25-2007, 09:34 AM

How do you know the nation anthem was playing at the moment the picture was taken?

I must have missed the accompanying sound clip. I am sure Cobra in his rush to be intellectually honest posted somewhere, but I just didn't see it right?

(shrugs)

How do you know that he didn't put his hand over his heart when the music started 2 seconds later?

Hard to tell from just one cherry-picked picture, isn't it?

There's a video on this site.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html

Wild Cobra

10-25-2007, 09:56 AM

There's a video on this site.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html
Too bad that's sound to a still picture.

How do you know that he didn't put his hand over his heart when the music started 2 seconds later?

I never claimed to know for sure, but did hear about the incident. Now I finally found the clip, and that quesation is answered:

"controversy," Hannity asks: "Is this.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhW4RivSUfU)

clambake

10-25-2007, 10:20 AM

This is dumber and more disingenuous than the 9/11 conspiracy threads.
yes it is. anxiety and fear are gripping the gop. it's on life support and ready for flatline. followers can see the end. they're desperately trying to make peace with their God while begging the lord for their party's exsistance.

the only weapon they have left is fear, so they'll prey on the weak, again.

Spurminator

10-25-2007, 10:21 AM

Too bad that's sound to a still picture.

No it's not.

JoeChalupa

10-25-2007, 10:23 AM

I agree he should have placed his hand over his heart.

George Gervin's Afro

10-25-2007, 10:25 AM

clambake

10-25-2007, 10:27 AM

http://www.newshounds.us/Bush_Hand.jpg

Ooops!!! Impeach him!!!
hows that?

Yonivore

10-25-2007, 10:30 AM

I'll end this silly thread. if I can find Bush a picture of bush without his hand over his heart during the playing of ther national anthem will this shut up the resident whiners? or will the nwe have logically assume the bush is not fit to be president and that we should question his loyalty?
Didn't someone post one of those just a bit ago?

Oh yeah:

http://www.newshounds.us/Bush_Hand.jpg

You really pay attention.

But, that doesn't really end the debate over Hussein. My question was, "does he consciously not place his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem and why did he quit wearing the American Flag pin that is traditionally worn by Senators and member of Congress?"

Anyone can forget to put their hand over their heart during the national anthem.

George Gervin's Afro

10-25-2007, 10:30 AM

hows that?

now this thread can end. it was weak to start it but it was even weaker to try and make an issue out of it.

George Gervin's Afro

10-25-2007, 10:32 AM

Didn't someone post one of those just a bit ago?

Oh yeah:

http://www.newshounds.us/Bush_Hand.jpg

You really pay attention.

But, that doesn't really end the debate over Hussein. My question was, "does he consciously not place his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem and why did he quit wearing the American Flag pin that is traditionally worn by Senators and member of Congress?"

Anyone can forget to put their hand over their heart during the national anthem.

he already explained why he doesn't wear the flag pin. either your nitpicking further or just to lazy to find out yourself.

Wild Cobra

10-25-2007, 10:35 AM

No it's not.
I didn't see any movement at all on the raw story link. That's why I provided the other.

Now as for president Bush, looks like a snapshot as he is rising his hand.

clambake

10-25-2007, 10:36 AM

it's a "GOP whining for attention" thread.

just stick to scaring the weak. it's the only tool you have left.

clambake

10-25-2007, 10:38 AM

he's not rising his hand. and look at laura, she's so disgusted having to pretend to be happily married.

Wild Cobra

10-25-2007, 10:44 AM

OK, maybe the rew story link is a video? If so, my computer only played the audio. so... do I have a problem there? Anyone? I have so many layers of protection on thye computer, something might be in conflict.

As for the last of the you-tube link I supplied, from a campaign spokesperson:

"Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. In no way was he making any sort of statement, and any suggestion to the contrary is rediculous"

I'm sorry. Back to the "lead by example" and proper honors. He needs to do these things. If he's not making a statement, he's too damn ignorant to be president. If he's making a statement, it's the wrong statement to make.

He lost some of the respect I had for him, which was quite a bit for a liberal.

clambake

10-25-2007, 10:44 AM

look at that sad picture of truth. poor laura is thinking "God I'm miserable. Isn't there one descent sniper left in the world?"

Yonivore

10-25-2007, 10:47 AM

he already explained why he doesn't wear the flag pin. either your nitpicking further or just to lazy to find out yourself.
No, I've heard his explanation. I don't get the connection between protesting the Iraq war and not wearing the American flag -- a tradition that predates our invasion of Iraq.

Yonivore

10-25-2007, 10:53 AM

Yonivore

10-25-2007, 10:57 AM

http://msunderestimated.com/ObamasFlagPin.jpg

clambake

10-25-2007, 10:58 AM

poor laura, that picture says it all. so many women attached to conservatives and feeling trapped with no hope of escape. she must live in constant fear. probably hoping for a comet to bring her some sweet relief.

George Gervin's Afro

10-25-2007, 10:59 AM

I probably never would have noticed, let alone cared, if Barack Obama had simply stopped wearing an American flag lapel pin. I'd never noticed that he was wearing one in the first place. But Obama chose to frame his decision to stop wearing the flag pin as some kind of political statement. So I think it is natural for people to wonder what, exactly, is the content of the political statement; to what group of voters is it intended to appeal; and what does it tell us about Obama as a candidate?

There doesn't seem to be any plausible set of answers to these questions that casts much credit on Obama.

leave it to Fox news to whore the story..that's who broke it and brought it to your attention. so it wasn't that big of a deal until the fair and balanced network brought it up.. no they are not biased and still cannot figure out why dems stay far away from fox news..

Yonivore

10-25-2007, 11:02 AM

leave it to Fox news to whore the story..that's who broke it and brought it to your attention. so it wasn't that big of a deal until the fair and balanced network brought it up.. no they are not biased and still cannot figure out why dems stay far away from fox news..
Actually, a local reporter for KCRG (the ABC affiliate in Cedar Rapids, Iowa) asked the question. The Associated Press picked up his response and NBC News took the story to their national audience.

I'm not saying FoxNews didn't report it but, I don't watch FoxNews...I don't even get that channel on my television.

George Gervin's Afro

10-25-2007, 11:03 AM

Actually, a local reporter for KCRG (the ABC affiliate in Cedar Rapids, Iowa) asked the question. The Associated Press picked up his response and NBC News took the story to their national audience.

I'm not saying FoxNews didn't report it but, I don't watch FoxNews...I don't even get that channel on my television.

well that is where i saw the most interest in the story.

clambake

10-25-2007, 11:04 AM

http://www.newshounds.us/Bush_Hand.jpg

look at poor laura. it's just been confirmed that the only song on her ipod is "rescue me".

Yonivore

10-25-2007, 11:08 AM

well that is where i saw the most interest in the story.
I see. I did a search and have yet to find a story on it linked to FoxNews.

I'll look again.

Yonivore

10-25-2007, 11:10 AM

First page of a google search on "Obama and the flag" comes back with several links to MSNBC, Breitbart, ABCNews, and Salon -- along with some blogs.

No FoxNews link...

Let me see how many pages in before I get to a FoxNews story about "Obama and the flag"

Spurminator

10-25-2007, 11:11 AM

Search Obama lapel pin.

Yonivore

10-25-2007, 11:12 AM

First link on page 3

Obama Stops Wearing Flag Pin (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Oct05/0,4670,ObamaNoFlagPin,00.html)

I read the story and can't find any biased editorializing on the part of FoxNews. Let me know if you do.

Yonivore

10-25-2007, 11:15 AM

Search Obama lapel pin.
I did. Same story shows up as the fourth link and on the top of page 3:

Candidates Have Their Say on Obama's Decision Not to Wear Flag Pin (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299578,00.html)

Another fair article with no hint of biased editorializing.

clambake

10-25-2007, 11:17 AM

http://www.newshounds.us/Bush_Hand.jpg

look at poor laura, wishing she'd have dipped "W's" lapel pin in poison. so sad, the battered face of women trapped

George Gervin's Afro

10-25-2007, 11:20 AM

Fox & Friends' Doocy reported Obama's "patriotism problems"

During the October 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, while previewing a discussion of a clip of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in which Obama did not place his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem at a campaign event in Indianola, Iowa, co-host Steve Doocy asserted, "First he kicked his American flag pin to the curb. Now Barack Obama has a new round of patriotism problems," echoing an assertion made by the conservative blog NewsBusters. As Media Matters for America documented, during an October 3 interview with ABC-affiliate KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Obama was asked why he was not wearing an American flag pin on his lapel. Obama responded, "[R]ight after 9-11, I had a pin," adding: "Shortly after 9-11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security." NewsBusters noted in an October 20 post that Time magazine had photographed Obama without his hand over his heart during the national anthem, writing, "Turns out that not wearing a flag lapel pin isn't the only way Barack Obama chooses to show he's a different kind of Democrat."

During the segment that Doocy had previewed, co-host Gretchen Carlson asked, "[D]id you know that there is United States Code ... that talks about what your stance and hand-over-heart action should be ... when the national anthem is playing?" Doocy responded that, according to United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10 , Sec. 171, "During the singing of the national anthem, you've got to have your hand over your heart." Contrary to Doocy's assertion, however, 36 U.S.C. § 301(b)(1) (the current section of the U.S. Code dealing with conduct during the national anthem) does not compel the placement of the right hand over the heart during the performance of the national anthem (a requirement that would presumably be unconstitutional). Indeed, according to the code, "During a rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart" (emphasis added). Subsection (b)(2) provides: "When the flag is not displayed, those present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed there" (emphasis added). According to the website usflag.org, 36 U.S.C. § 171 contained the same provisions.

This is not the first time that Doocy has attacked Obama. During the January 19 edition of Fox & Friends First, Doocy asked of Obama, "Why didn't anybody ever mention that that man right there was raised -- spent the first decade of his life, raised by his Muslim father -- as a Muslim and was educated in a madrassa?" as the blog Think Progress noted. As Media Matters for America documented, during the January 22 edition of Fox & Friends First, Doocy issued a clarification: "We want to clarify something: On Friday of last week, we did the story from the Insight magazine where we talked about how they were quoting that Barack Obama, when he was a child growing up in Indonesia, had attended a madrassa. Well, Mr. Obama's people called and they said that that is absolutely false. They said the idea that Barack Obama went to a radical Muslim school is completely ridiculous. In his book it does say that he went to a mostly Muslim school but not to a madrassa."

From the October 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

DOOCY: First he kicked his American flag pin to the curb. Now Barack Obama has a new round of patriotism problems. Wait until you hear what the White House hopeful didn't do during the singing of the national anthem.

[...]

DOOCY: We told you -- I think it's been a couple of months now -- Barack Obama was out in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and he was asked by KCRG, the local TV station, "Hey, what's the deal? Why don't you wear a flag pin?" And Mr. Obama said that he would like to -- he wore it for a while but he'd like to show his patriotism a different way.

George Gervin's Afro

10-25-2007, 11:23 AM

From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the October 5 edition of Fox News Live:

HILL: Democrat Barack Obama making his presidential campaign a no-pin zone, taking some heat over his explanation for why he stopped wearing a flag pin. The Illinois senator says he stopped wearing the flag pin, which he had put on after the 9-11 attacks, because he feels it is a hypocritical substitute for true patriotism. Well, here's what he said to a crowd in Iowa. Let's take a look at it. "Shortly after 9-11, particularly because, as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security." Now, Obama says everyone should be less concerned with what's on his lapel than what's in his heart. Joining us is Fox News Radio's Brian Kilmeade and Judge Andrew Napolitano, co-hosts of Brian and the Judge. When I heard this, actually, one of the direct quotes that got to me was, "I won't wear that pin." It reminded me of the "I didn't have sex with that woman." But on the flip side of that, it's a pin. Who cares if he wears it? I wear mine sometimes, not others.

NAPOLITANO: I think he's disrespecting the American flag, E.D., but I understand why he's doing it. He's appealing to a hard-left audience. That's the only way he can catch up with Hillary Clinton, and they agree that wearing the pin means you're pro-war.

KILMEADE: So what you're saying is he's kissing up to the people who don't like the American flag?

NAPOLITANO: Right.

KILMEADE: How will that benefit anybody?

NAPOLITANO: Right, it will benefit him because he will get him votes that he otherwise won't get if he wears that pin. That's the mentality he has to appeal to.

KILMEADE: Well, here's the thing, E.D., what we' re getting from callers, almost nine out of 10 that we've gotten on this subject, and we're looking at a whole bunch of topics, have said: "Barack Obama, put it on, and your explanation does not fly." So you have to wonder, he's got to focus on Iowa. So the people of Iowa, when he goes and catches up to people in the field, no one's going to say, "I'm not voting for you, you're wearing the pin." But how many are going to say, "I'm not voting -- I will vote for you because you are wearing the pin"? That you -- just play the odds.

HILL: But guys, I mean, look at it. Brian, you and I did a show for a long time together. Both of us had on flag pins for probably a number of years. I haven't been wearing it probably the past year. But that doesn't make us any less patriotic, does it?

NAPOLITANO: I don't think it makes you any less patriotic at all. I don't wear the pin and I'm a patriot. I fly the flag at my home, and I say a prayer when I think of it for all those who died that I can fly that flag. But that's -- I'm not the type of person Barack Obama is appealing to.

KILMEADE: I just think --

NAPOLITANO: He's appealing to a lot of people that want us to lose the war.

KILMEADE: He's anti-Betsy Ross, and she's one of my favorite female figures, and for that I stand up for you, Betsy.

HILL.: Although the truth is Betsy Ross didn't sew that flag. One of those American --

KILMEADE: More on that later.

HILL: -- American myths. More on that later, or not.

KILMEADE: I'm buying that myth.

HILL: But do you think it really does matter, Brian, because it seems like it's because he was wearing it for so long that it was odd when he took it off, and that's where the catch comes?

KILMEADE: Well, look, as his wife said, "If we don't win Iowa, we cannot win. The dream is over." My feeling is, why take a stand, he stumbled into it, and it does not seem as though it is something that he really thought out well. I think he's got to apologize to the people, for example, who are working the fields, that were Marines, who were in the Army --

HILL: What, apologize for not wearing a pin?

NAPOLITANO: Yes.

KILMEADE: Well, to say that the American flag is -- wearing the American flag shows too much patriotism? I mean, that's what he is insinuating.

HILL: Well, no, he said he didn't need to wear it to show patriotism.

NAPOLITANO: But to the crowd from whom he wants votes, wearing the flag is too much patriotism. Doesn't make sense to you and me.

HILL: And we'll see how it plays in Iowa, as they say.

Yonivore

10-25-2007, 11:23 AM

George Gervin's Afro

10-25-2007, 11:25 AM

From the October 5 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:

BILL HEMMER (co-host): All right, Barack Obama wants to be president, right? This week he was asked why he no longer wears an American flag lapel pin on his suit. Instead the Illinois senator saying that he wants to show Americans his beliefs are a testament to his patriotism. How's this going to impact his campaign? Let's debate that now with radio talk show host Mark Williams and the Washington editor for The Nation, David Corn. Gentlemen, welcome to both of you here.

WILLIAMS: Thank you.

CORN: Good to be here.

HEMMER: David, you first, now how does this decision win votes? That's the name of the game, right?

CORN: Uh, excuse me. Last night, on this very network, there was an interview with Fred Thompson. Guess what he had on his lapel? No flag pin. I went on to the websites this morning of John McCain and Mitt Romney. Found lots of pictures of them, no flag pin, flag pin. I looked at Congressional Quarterly this morning, and I did see a picture of Larry Craig, the disgraced senator who's not giving up his seat. There was a flag pin.

HEMMER: I don't, OK.

CORN: This is a big nothing. Unless you want to talk about everybody else who's wearing and not wearing a flag pin, I don't see how this makes a difference in the race.

HEMMER: I want to bring in Mark in a moment. Have these guys been asked about it yet? I don't think they have. I think it's Obama that's on record as addressing this. Mark, what do you make of this? How does it win votes? That is the name of the game.

WILLIAMS: It uh, well first of all, Obama's very different than those other names, in that Obama says he took his flag pin off after 9-11, and he felt, apparently, some sort of an affinity or some sort of a connection, because at that point he felt it OK to come out of the closet as the domestic insurgent he is.

CORN: Oh, you know --

WILLIAMS: The Democrat [sic] Party is coming out of the closet as the domestic insurgency and the domestic enemy. We've got John "Skippy" Edwards, who wants us all to march off to the doctor for mandatory physicals. Hillary Clinton, who wants us to be denied the right to work for a living unless we live a politically correct prescribed lifestyle for our universal health insurance. Obama, who says 9-11 is his cue to take off the American flag --

CORN: Mark, Mark --

WILLIAMS: And then now David Corn equating an American flag with a pervert in a toilet.

CORN: That's wrong, Mark. You have your facts wrong.

HEMMER: He's calling him a "domestic insurgent," David?

CORN: Hey, hey, Bill, Bill, let me make a suggestion here. If you want to have an intelligent debate, you should have someone who knows the facts. What Obama says is that he wore a flag pin after 9-11. That's not that 9-11 caused him to take it off. And that after --

WILLIAMS: Took it off after 9-11.

CORN: No, no. And then he took it off sometime after 9-11 --

WILLIAMS: As a - as a good ally --

[crosstalk]

HEMMER: Hang on.

CORN: Let me finish.

[crosstalk]

CORN: He took it off because he didn't like the run-up to the war, and he decided that you show your patriotism by your ideals, not by what you wear on your lapel. So you have it wrong, Mark. Mark, you owe him an apology.

HEMMER: David, you've made your point. Mark, is that the case? Is that a fact?

CORN: You owe him an apology, Mark.

HEMMER: Hang on, David. Mark, go ahead.

WILLIAMS: He took it off after 9/11. He said that he felt that the flag was becoming something -- it was becoming too noticeable, too high profile. He thought that people were wearing it in place of showing their patriotism. I mean, come on, what has Obama done to demonstrate the patriotism that he says doesn't belong on his lapel? What's he done to demonstrate that, except get out there, badmouth this country, and help demoralize the troops, and help do his part to undermine this nation?

CORN: You know, there are plenty of generals who don't support this war who have spoken out against it. I guess they're all unpatriotic in your view too. More Americans than not say the war was a mistake. Are they unpatriotic as well, Mark? You're putting yourself into a very small corner.

WILLIAMS: Are they throwing their flags into the gutter?

CORN: No one's throwing their flags into the gutter.

WILLIAMS: Maybe Obama would like a cloth flag and a match.

CORN: You know, you really should stick to some facts. I know on radio talk, rhetoric is what counts the most, but you're misstating the facts, and now you're branding everybody who's against the war as being unpatriotic? Some people would say that that's unpatriotic.

WILLIAMS: I'm talking about Obama --

HEMMER: Mark, you get the last word. Fire away.

WILLIAMS: I'm talking about Obama and the domestic enemies in the Democrat Party --

CORN: Oh, this is absurd.

WILLIAMS: -- who stand for everything this country was founded to oppose.

HEMMER: You guys are hot.

CORN: Well, I'm right and he's wrong.

HEMMER: David, thank you. Mark, thanks to you as well.

WILLIAMS: Thanks.

HEMMER: Something tells me that this isn't the last of this debate. See you guys.

Fox news whored the story

Yonivore

10-25-2007, 11:30 AM

Fox news whored the story
Looks like that David Corn guy, other than being obnoxious and rude, was able to raise some pretty good points in Obama's defense.

Chris Matthews would have long since drowned a Republican counterpart in spittle...

Are you saying FoxNews ran this story longer than did any of the other news networks?

Yonivore

10-25-2007, 11:31 AM

On more thing. None of your examples appear to occur during news segments.

But, again, I don't watch FoxNews so, I'm not familiar with all the programming.

Yonivore

10-25-2007, 11:34 AM

I did a quick search on MSNBC and there were 247 hits on "Obama and lapel pin" in their programming files.

A quick scan showed the first couple of pages coming from their on air programs.

JohnnyMarzetti

10-25-2007, 11:35 AM

You mean FauxNews.

FromWayDowntown

10-25-2007, 11:42 AM

On more thing. None of your examples appear to occur during news segments.

But, again, I don't watch FoxNews so, I'm not familiar with all the programming.

A program entitled "America's Newsroom" isn't a news segment?

I suppose it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Yonivore

10-25-2007, 11:50 AM

A program entitled "America's Newsroom" isn't a news segment?
Not necessarily. The format of the transcript seemed more like a Nightline segment or a Hardball segment where a moderator brings up a split screen or sets two opponents next to one another and elicits a debate.

I think of news segments being where the news is reported. That looked more like a venue for competing opinions...not news.

George Gervin's Afro

10-25-2007, 11:51 AM

Not necessarily. The format of the transcript seemed more like a Nightline segment or a Hardball segment where a moderator brings up a split screen or sets two opponents next to one another and elicits a debate.

I think of news segments being where the news is reported. That looked more like a venue for competing opinions...not news.

The question is , why is it a big deal? Fox's point is to leave the story out there so people can assume this is an issue..

Yonivore

10-25-2007, 11:58 AM

The question is , why is it a big deal? Fox's point is to leave the story out there so people can assume this is an issue..
My point was that I'm not convinced FoxNews "left the story out there" any longer than any of the other cable news programs.

MSNBC had quite a few hits itself...I haven't checked CNN.

But, on the more serious issue, I do think his response to why he wasn't wearing the pin raises a compelling issue as comically illustrated in the cartoon I posted.

Wearing or not wearing the pin depending on whether you think about it that morning or not, is one thing. Making a conscious decision not to wear it and then explaining it as some kind of political statement -- that makes no sense to many of us -- does warrant some attention.

ChumpDumper

10-25-2007, 01:06 PM

Thank God we are finally talking about the important issues.

George Gervin's Afro

10-25-2007, 03:51 PM

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x45/razap/images.jpg

speaking of questioning candidate's credibiltiy and judgement.. can we trust her?

Yonivore

10-25-2007, 04:01 PM

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x45/razap/images.jpg

speaking of questioning candidate's credibiltiy and judgement.. can we trust her?
Talk about out of context.

exstatic

10-25-2007, 06:42 PM

I think more of Obama (and I'm not a supporter) than the Current Occupant, who has pretty much wiped his ass with the Constitution while dotting all of the symbolic "I"s of Patriotic appearance.

Yonivore

10-25-2007, 10:16 PM

I think more of Obama (and I'm not a supporter) than the Current Occupant, who has pretty much wiped his ass with the Constitution while dotting all of the symbolic "I"s of Patriotic appearance.
I ask this with all sincerety. Precisely which articles of the constitution has President Bush used to wipe his ass?

C'mon, cite the Article, section, and paragraph.

Then, tell us all, why this rabid Congress hasn't already drafted articles of impeachment.

exstatic

10-25-2007, 11:57 PM

smeagol

10-26-2007, 05:14 AM

Many men have died to keep that flag flying over this greatest nation in the history of the world.

Superiority complex anyone?

Wild Cobra

10-26-2007, 06:27 AM

Fox & Friends is a news program?

Or, is it something more akin to Hannity and Colmes, Hardball, etc...?

Just curious. I've never seen the show.

And, can you identify the people in the Fox News interview? Which is the Fox News employee and which is the interviewee?
Fox and Friends is not any type of a news program except when they present a weak weather report. It is a discussion show, a more moderate version of something like The View.

What do you expect for a morning program? I don't care for it much myself.

Wild Cobra

10-26-2007, 06:45 AM

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What searches or seizures have been "unreasonable?" Who are you to decide? Doesn’t the ‘executor’ of the law decide such things as the final decider, as long as it doesn’t violate the constitution?

Ever look in a legal dictionary what a warrant is? It is not permission, but an order to do something. Issuing a warrant requires probable cause supported by someone’s word like a witness. Law enforcement personnel do not need a warrant if they have witnessed probable cause. A warrant is a way of delegating such action. Current rulings and laws to protect citizens rights do not override the presidents rights to exercise his power as executor of the law.

From my Barron’s Law Dictionary:

Warrant:

A written order or writ from a competent authority directing the doing of a certain act. 171 F. Supp. 393, 395.

Again, a warrant is not permission to search, incarcerate, or seize. It is an order to do so!

Yonivore

10-26-2007, 06:57 AM

Superiority complex anyone?
No, just superiority. It's not a complex...it's a reality.

Yonivore

10-26-2007, 07:00 AM

4th amendment
1) Where is the warrant when government searches me at the airport? At the border? At a federal building?

2) Why is President Bush the first President to have to apply the constitution to enemy combatants, terrorists, and spies?

Wild Cobra

10-26-2007, 07:21 AM

Just for more clarification, UNREASONABLE is defined in my legal ditionary too.

Unreasonable:

arbitrary, capricious, absurd, immoderate, or exorbitant, 287 N.W. 122, 131; not comfortable to reason, irrational, beyond bounds of reason or moderation, 268 P. 2d 605, 616.

Oh, Gee!!

10-26-2007, 08:55 AM

This thread is a waste of bandwidth.

Yonivore

10-26-2007, 08:58 AM

This thread is a waste of bandwidth.
This forum is a waste of bandwidth so, what's your point?

Oh, Gee!!

10-26-2007, 08:59 AM

This forum is a waste of bandwidth so, what's your point?

you're a waste of an IP address

Yonivore

10-26-2007, 09:05 AM

you're a waste of an IP address
Yep.

Now, have you improved the forum?

ChumpDumper

10-26-2007, 12:54 PM

I'm glad empty symbolism is the burning issue of the day.

TLWisfoine

10-26-2007, 05:07 PM

What searches or seizures have been "unreasonable?" Who are you to decide? Doesn’t the ‘executor’ of the law decide such things as the final decider, as long as it doesn’t violate the constitution?

Ever look in a legal dictionary what a warrant is? It is not permission, but an order to do something. Issuing a warrant requires probable cause supported by someone’s word like a witness. Law enforcement personnel do not need a warrant if they have witnessed probable cause. A warrant is a way of delegating such action. Current rulings and laws to protect citizens rights do not override the presidents rights to exercise his power as executor of the law.

From my Barron’s Law Dictionary:

Again, a warrant is not permission to search, incarcerate, or seize. It is an order to do so!

Why don't we just declare America a police state and get all this legal mumbo jumbo out of the way.

Wild Cobra

10-26-2007, 05:30 PM

This thread is a waste of bandwidth.
Why? Undisputable facts?

Wild Cobra

10-26-2007, 05:31 PM

Why don't we just declare America a police state and get all this legal mumbo jumbo out of the way.
But that would be unreasonable....

TLWisfoine

10-26-2007, 05:33 PM

But that would be unreasonable....

We are already half there why not just take the final step?

exstatic

10-26-2007, 07:11 PM

Does the judge run down the cop and give him a warrant and say "go search this house!"? No. The cop goes to the judge seeking a warrant. If he gets it, the search/seizure is on. If not, then no. De Facto permission.

I'm actually done with this, Yoni and WC, because we are never going to agree or convince the other to do so. I think the government, whatever party is in power, should never have this much power. You think, under certain circumstances, they should. The problem with that is that if they have the power, they're going to use it over and over and over and over, until the circumstances don't matter anymore.

Oh, Gee!!

10-26-2007, 07:35 PM

Yep.

Now, have you improved the forum?

I think so.

Oh, Gee!!

10-26-2007, 07:36 PM

Why? Undisputable facts?

no, because an idiot created it.

Wild Cobra

10-26-2007, 08:02 PM

no, because an idiot created it.
Then ignore it instead of wasting your time. If you think it's a waste, then you must be insane to participate in it.

Wild Cobra

10-28-2007, 03:39 PM

Does the judge run down the cop and give him a warrant and say "go search this house!"? No. The cop goes to the judge seeking a warrant. If he gets it, the search/seizure is on. If not, then no. De Facto permission.

Actually, there are plenty of cases where the probable cause of the police is justified to enter without a warrant. Current laws for civil jurisdictions normally require a warrant. However, the constitution does not.

I'm actually done with this, Yoni and WC, because we are never going to agree or convince the other to do so.

I understand. Your arguments are to weak to contine debate on.

There are some things I think I cannot be convinced otherwise. However, I am open minded and could change my mind on any belief with sufficient evidence. I'm sorry if you truly are closed minded.

I think the government, whatever party is in power, should never have this much power.

What we think, and what law is are two different things.

You think, under certain circumstances, they should.

Absolutely. As long as the actions are reasonable, I see no need to seek a warrant for time sensitive issues.

The problem with that is that if they have the power, they're going to use it over and over and over and over, until the circumstances don't matter anymore.

There are some who will abuse such powers, but... such people would weather legal or not.

FromWayDowntown

10-28-2007, 05:42 PM

Absolutely. As long as the actions are reasonable, I see no need to seek a warrant for time sensitive issues.

But who defines what is reasonable?

To this point in American history, reasonableness, by long-agreed conventions, has been decided by courts, not executives. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge all of the exceptions to the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement are judicially-created.

You seem to be arguing that it's for an executive branch actor to decide whether a particular circumstance requires a warrant or not. That's never been true -- or, at the very least, any such decisions made by an executive branch actor have been subjected to judicial review to determine whether the search undertaken is one that required a warrant or not.

You can cite the dictionary definitions of reasonableness all you like, but the functional truth is that there are a few established exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, most of which have little to do with a dictionary definition of reasonableness and a whole lot to do with balancing the privacy rights of individuals against the need to empower law enforcement. On balance, the privacy rights of individuals prevail -- as they probably should. As a result, there's good reason to question the constitutionality of efforts to identify new circumstances that will permit warrantless searches.

In the context of an issue like AG Gonzalez's warrantless wiretapping program, the argument for a warrantless search (and I'll stop you in advance, a wiretap has already been defined as a search for Fourth Amendment purposes) is particularly curious because Congress has passed a law that says that such efforts will generally require a warrant from the FISC. We're not really sure whether that program was employed against American citizens, but I don't know that it's somehow unconscionable for people to believe that it might have been and to discern from that reasonable suspicion that the program may have contravened constitutional rights -- even if President Bush thought the program was reasonable. We'll likely never get concrete answers to those questions because it would be nearly impossible -- absent an arrest dependent upon information gleaned from such surveillance -- to find a person with legal standing to challenge the program. Still, there are cases in the pipe dealing with that issue and we'll have to wait to see what happens with them. In the meantime, though, I could certainly understand why some would reasonably believe that there have been some unconstitutional undertakings by this Administration in that regard.

10,000.

Wild Cobra

10-28-2007, 05:58 PM

But who defines what is reasonable?

The term is pretty well spelled out in legal dictionaries. Part of the process of getting the warrant is not to take a chance of being legally wrong.

To this point in American history, reasonableness, by long-agreed conventions, has been decided by courts, not executives. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge all of the exceptions to the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement are judicially-created.

But the executive branch is an equal part of government. The higher standards are kept in place for the lower law enforcement.

Now I will grant this. There are some instances that are clearly reasonable, and some that are clearly unreasonable with a rather large grey area.

You seem to be arguing that it's for an executive branch actor to decide whether a particular circumstance requires a warrant or not. That's never been true -- or, at the very least, any such decisions made by an executive branch actor have been subjected to judicial review to determine whether the search undertaken is one that required a warrant or not.

That's not my argument. Laws created by congress cannot tie the presidents hands from him carrying out his constitutional duties. Only a constitutional change can change what a president can currently do.

You can cite the dictionary definitions of reasonableness all you like, but the functional truth is that there are a few established exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, most of which have little to do with a dictionary definition of reasonableness and a whole lot to do with balancing the privacy rights of individuals against the need to empower law enforcement.

Now stop and think a minute. The 4th amendment does not say a warrant is required, but it does state the criteria required to issue a warrant.

On balance, the privacy rights of individuals prevail -- as they probably should. As a result, there's good reason to question the constitutionality of efforts to identify new circumstances that will permit warrantless searches.

You are refusing to read the 4th amendment correctly. Where does it state anywhere, that a warrant is required?

In the context of an issue like AG Gonzalez's warrantless wiretapping program, the argument for a warrantless search (and I'll stop you in advance, a wiretap has already been defined as a search for Fourth Amendment purposes) is particularly curious because Congress has passed a law that says that such efforts will generally require a warrant from the FISC.

Is this legal definition you talk about a case law referring to regular law enforcement, or national security?

Congress can limit civil law officers. Not executive power.

10,000.

Congrats on your 100 squared.

ChumpDumper

10-28-2007, 06:23 PM

This time-sensitive argument doesn't fly. There are already provisions to receive a FISA warrant after the monitoring has already been executed. The executive branch simply wants to operate without any oversight whatsoever. I guess they think some branches of government are more equal than others.

FromWayDowntown

10-28-2007, 06:31 PM

The term is pretty well spelled out in legal dictionaries. Part of the process of getting the warrant is not to take a chance of being legally wrong.

Legal dictionaries are not the law. Cite a court to a legal dictionary to prove a legal proposition and you'll be laughed at -- very, very loudly laughed at. Legal dictionaries try to provide a legal justification for certain definitions that are helpful to understanding legal concepts, but the definition put forward by a legal dictionary is never, ever controlling.

But the executive branch is an equal part of government. The higher standards are kept in place for the lower law enforcement.

I'm not discounting the executive's co-equal standing; I'm simply telling you that while you seem to be implying that it is up to the executive to determine whether a search is reasonable or not for Fourth Amendment purposes. I'm telling you that the executive's claims of reasonableness have always, historically, been subject to challenge through the judiciary and the executive has always, historically, accepted the judiciary's determinations about the constitutional reasonableness of a search. That has everything to do with the meaningful separation of powers.

Now I will grant this. There are some instances that are clearly reasonable, and some that are clearly unreasonable with a rather large grey area.

Again, even where the executive thinks a search falling within the grey area is reasonable that reasoning is subject to review by courts. As such, courts generally have the final say in determining whether a warrantless search is reasonable or not -- courts; not the executive.

That's not my argument. Laws created by congress cannot tie the presidents hands from him carrying out his constitutional duties. Only a constitutional change can change what a president can currently do.

Or a willingness to accept the judiciary's constructions of the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. I suppose that you could call those decisions constitutional changes, but really they're just decisions applying law to particular facts to determine the constitutionality of an executive act. If the Supreme Court were to determine that a particular search required a warrant and that was somehow not an acceptable result, Congress could pass a law or the People could amend the Constitution. But with very limited exceptions, that hasn't generally happened.

Now stop and think a minute. The 4th amendment does not say a warrant is required, but it does state the criteria required to issue a warrant.

The default position in Constitutional Law is that the Fourth Amendment does require a warrant supported by probable cause -- that is, constitutional presumption is that a search undertaken without a warrant is unreasonable. Given that fact, the circumstances in which no warrant is required are known as "exceptions to the warrant requirement;" if the Fourth Amendment were understood to not require a warrant, there would be "exceptions requiring a warrant."

You are refusing to read the 4th amendment correctly. Where does it state anywhere, that a warrant is required?

I'm only relating to you the nearly-unanimous understanding of the Fourth Amendment's language. I'd tell you that the notion that the government must obtain a warrant is implicit in the requirement that a search be reasonable. That is, a search is reasonable, in general terms, only if it is conducted pursuant to a warrant. The second clause of the Fourth Amendment defines under what circumstances a court can issue a warrant, but that notion would be essentially useless unless there was a general need to obtain a warrant in the first place.

That construction of the Fourth Amendment supports the notion of a balancing of individual privacy rights against governmental law enforcement interests. If you stopped to think about Fourth Amendment jurisprudence at all, you'd realize that the balancing test is implicit in any and all discussions of the warrant requirement.

Is this legal definition you talk about a case law referring to regular law enforcement, or national security?

I don't know that there would be any reason to make that distinction. The Fourth Amendment doesn't distinguish between searches undertaken by regular law enforcement and searches undertaken under the auspicies of national security. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government -- any branch and regardless of the basis for its action -- from unreasonably searching the persons and property of citizens.

Congress can limit civil law officers. Not executive power.

Though this President doesn't seem willing to admit it, the Constitution restrains executive power. And it does so very much in favor of the People. The arguments against programs like the warrantless wiretapping program aren't arguments concerning Congressional power to limit the President; they're arguments that the program exceeds the bounds of the Fourth Amendment, which clearly imposes limits on executive power.

Wild Cobra

10-29-2007, 03:29 PM

Legal dictionaries are not the law.
These are legal established definitions. If you wish to maintain denial in what the constitution clearly says, then fine. It was written in clear English of the day for people to easily understand.

Please... show me were the constitution says a warrant is required, rather than explaining how authroizing it as a tool is granted.

Are you up to the challenge?

If not, I maintain my argument that the constitution does not protect from reasonable search and seizure, and that law less than the constitution cannot override the presidents contitutional powers.

FromWayDowntown

10-29-2007, 04:34 PM

These are legal established definitions. If you wish to maintain denial in what the constitution clearly says, then fine. It was written in clear English of the day for people to easily understand.

Please... show me were the constitution says a warrant is required, rather than explaining how authroizing it as a tool is granted.

Are you up to the challenge?

If not, I maintain my argument that the constitution does not protect from reasonable search and seizure, and that law less than the constitution cannot override the presidents contitutional powers.
I'll try this a different way -- the Constitution says that individuals should be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The question, then, is what is unreasonable. Since "unreasonable" isn't defined in the Constitution, that question has been left to courts. Those courts have determined that a search undertaken without a warrant is unreasonable unless and except certain very specific conditions are present. Those conditions -- "exceptions to the warrant requirement" -- a search where contraband is in plain view; a search where exigent circumstances exist (imminent destruction of evidence or threat of physical harm posed by suspect, for instance); a search incident to a lawful arrest; searches of places with diminished expectations of privacy such as open fields, public schools, and border crossings.

If you disagree with that construction of the Fourth Amendment, I'd suggest that you take it up with the Supreme Court of the United States and the vast majority of the general public who live by those rules and that construction every day of their lives. Congress and even Presidents live by that construction of the Fourth Amendment.

You can tell me all you want that your reading of the Fourth Amendment is superior to mine -- I'm not denying anything; I'm telling you that, regardless of your choices in reading the amendment, the Fourth Amendment's function has always been understood to require governmental officials to obtain warrants except where a search without a warrant can be deemed reasonable.

law less than the constitution cannot override the presidents contitutional powers
Law implementing Constitutional protections can override the President's Constitutional powers. The rights protected by the Constitution would be of very little value if the executive could just claim to have some Article II authority to ignore the very specific rights guaranteed to individuals. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are designed, in the main, to favor individuals over government. The President cannot claim an executive power to simply ignore constitutional guarantees; and if those constitutional guarantees are protected by statute (i.e., FISA) I don't see any authority for concluding that the President is vested with some right to ignore that law.

Wild Cobra

10-29-2007, 04:45 PM

DownTown. Again, you are applying the laws laid out for civil law and trying to apply them to national security.

It just doesn't wash.

FromWayDowntown

10-29-2007, 04:48 PM

DownTown. Again, you are applying the laws laid out for civil law and trying to apply them to national security.

It just doesn't wash.Are you saying that the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable if the President claims a national security interest justifies the search?

I'd be quite interested in seeing the Constitutional authority for that proposition.

I'd argue that you're both overstating the President's powers vis-a-vis the Bill of Rights and that you're choosing to ignore well-settled principles of Fourth Amendment law.

Nbadan

10-29-2007, 04:54 PM

The latest Obama outrage!

Watch: Obama Busts A Move On "Ellen" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/29/watch-obama-busts-a-move_n_70290.html)

Wild Cobra

10-29-2007, 06:54 PM

Are you saying that the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable if the President claims a national security interest justifies the search?

Yes, if he has a reasonable purpose behind the actions.

You refuse to acknowledge that the 4th amendment is not an absolute protection. It absolutely does not apply to reasonable searches. An equal branch of our higest government is not subject to the civil additions to the privacy protections.

I'm done with you. It is so easily understood, yet you don't. Come up with something compelling if you want farther responces from me on the subject.

You are just being unreasonable. Try being reasonable please...

ChumpDumper

10-29-2007, 06:57 PM

Being able to ask for the warrant after collecting the evidence is super-duper-reasonable.

Wild Cobra

10-29-2007, 07:07 PM

Being able to ask for the warrant after collecting the evidence is super-duper-reasonable.
I don't get that aspect of it, I think it's stupid. I have not seen anything to keep such 'spying' practices from occuring within constitutional 'reasonable' bounds.

ChumpDumper

10-29-2007, 07:18 PM

I don't get that aspect of it, I think it's stupid.You are just being unreasonable. Try being reasonable please...

FromWayDowntown

10-29-2007, 07:24 PM

Yes, if he has a reasonable purpose behind the actions.

You refuse to acknowledge that the 4th amendment is not an absolute protection. It absolutely does not apply to reasonable searches. An equal branch of our higest government is not subject to the civil additions to the privacy protections.

I'm done with you. It is so easily understood, yet you don't. Come up with something compelling if you want farther responces from me on the subject.

You are just being unreasonable. Try being reasonable please...Sure. My point is this: while the President can claim that a search is reasonable under whatever auspices he thinks that claim is justified, that claim is inherently one that is subject to challenge in courts, which have historically had the final say in determining if a search without a warrant is one that can be deemed reasonable or not. In that context, a search undertaken without a warrant is presumptively unconstitutional, but could be deemed constitutional if the executive can make a compelling argument to show that the search was somehow reasonable even without a warrant.

You're right in the sense that the President could authorize any search he wanted and claim the search to be so reasonable to not require a warrant. My point is that the ultimate constitutionality of his action will be decided, in most instances, by the judiciary. If the judiciary believes that national security creates a justification for deeming a particular warrantless search to be a reasonable one, that search will be upheld; if the judiciary believes that national security does not create that sort of justification, the search will be struck down.

The President's authority under Article II does not eliminate the protections of the Fourth Amendment. Period. If someone who is prosecuted on the basis of information obtained during a warrantless search chooses to challenge the constitutional validity of the search, the executive's Article II powers don't necessarily make the search permissible; they simply provide an argument to be made on behalf of deeming the search reasonable.

I can't wait to be told that I'm being obtuse or that I simply don't understand Constitutional Law.

Spurminator

10-30-2007, 11:00 AM

I thought this video would fit well with the first few pages of this thread...

Link (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most_important)

Yonivore

10-30-2007, 10:10 PM

Sure. My point is this: while the President can claim that a search is reasonable under whatever auspices he thinks that claim is justified, that claim is inherently one that is subject to challenge in courts, which have historically had the final say in determining if a search without a warrant is one that can be deemed reasonable or not. In that context, a search undertaken without a warrant is presumptively unconstitutional, but could be deemed constitutional if the executive can make a compelling argument to show that the search was somehow reasonable even without a warrant.

You're right in the sense that the President could authorize any search he wanted and claim the search to be so reasonable to not require a warrant. My point is that the ultimate constitutionality of his action will be decided, in most instances, by the judiciary. If the judiciary believes that national security creates a justification for deeming a particular warrantless search to be a reasonable one, that search will be upheld; if the judiciary believes that national security does not create that sort of justification, the search will be struck down.

The President's authority under Article II does not eliminate the protections of the Fourth Amendment. Period. If someone who is prosecuted on the basis of information obtained during a warrantless search chooses to challenge the constitutional validity of the search, the executive's Article II powers don't necessarily make the search permissible; they simply provide an argument to be made on behalf of deeming the search reasonable.

I can't wait to be told that I'm being obtuse or that I simply don't understand Constitutional Law.
I'm waiting for you to tell us why this is being battled out in the media, forums, and by leftist rhetoric. Why isn't it in the judiciary already?

I think opponents know what the judiciary will ultimately decide; the president acted within his constitutional authority as commander in chief, responsible for defending the nation.

PixelPusher

10-30-2007, 10:36 PM

I'm waiting for you to tell us why this is being battled out in the media, forums, and by leftist rhetoric. Why isn't it in the judiciary already?

Precisely because the Bush Administration doesn't want it to go to the judiciary, hence the hasty move to send Padilla to a civilian court before they got nailed by the Supreme Court.

Duff McCartney

10-31-2007, 02:11 AM

No, just superiority. It's not a complex...it's a reality.

And reality has a well known liberal bias.

Hell I'm an American...and even I wouldn't say America is the greatest nation on Earth...I'm just not that arrogant...as a human or as an American.

Spawn

10-31-2007, 02:28 AM

So getting back on topic are we still trying to say that Obama does not have love in his heart for A-merry-ca because of no hand on his heart bullshit?

FromWayDowntown

10-31-2007, 07:38 AM

I'm waiting for you to tell us why this is being battled out in the media, forums, and by leftist rhetoric. Why isn't it in the judiciary already?

I think opponents know what the judiciary will ultimately decide; the president acted within his constitutional authority as commander in chief, responsible for defending the nation.
Actually, it's not being fought in courts because every time someone tries to fight it out in court, the Administration argues that they lack standing to challenge the program.

It's not a question of fear that the administration will be validated, it's an inherent problem with exercises of executive power that would seem, from a macro perspective, to threaten constitutional rights while maintaining near-absolute secrecy about what is actually being done, so nobody actually knows if their rights have been violated or not.

101A

10-31-2007, 07:59 AM

And reality has a well known liberal bias.

I've seen that before.

Please explain.

Yonivore

10-31-2007, 09:49 AM

Actually, it's not being fought in courts because every time someone tries to fight it out in court, the Administration argues that they lack standing to challenge the program.
Successfully you should have added.

If you don't have anyone with standing, you don't have an injured party and, therefore, you don't have a constitutional violation.

It's not a question of fear that the administration will be validated, it's an inherent problem with exercises of executive power that would seem, from a macro perspective, to threaten constitutional rights while maintaining near-absolute secrecy about what is actually being done, so nobody actually knows if their rights have been violated or not.
But, there are a bunch of Democrats willing to state, with certainty, the administration is acting extra-constitutionally.

If, as you say, no one knows if there's been a violation, then how can anyone be certain there has been?

They can't.

The administration claims it is acting within its constitutional authority in these programs and there is no evidence to contrary. Well, that was certainly worth destroying a valuable intelligence tool to determine.

FromWayDowntown

10-31-2007, 11:09 AM

Successfully you should have added.

If you don't have anyone with standing, you don't have an injured party and, therefore, you don't have a constitutional violation.
That's not correct. You can have a constitutional violation inasmuch as someone's rights are being violated; the issue is that the person whose rights are being violated may not know (or be able to prove) that he or she, specifically, has been harmed. The inability to prove that a specific person was harmed does not make the program free of constitutional questions.

But, there are a bunch of Democrats willing to state, with certainty, the administration is acting extra-constitutionally.

If, as you say, no one knows if there's been a violation, then how can anyone be certain there has been?

Because there is reason to believe that the program functions in an extra-constitutional manner. Both the Fourth Amendment and FISA require warrants to undertake such surveillance, and it's clear that the program operates (or, perhaps, operated) without seeking warrants. The sole question is whether it has been used to obtain information about American citizens; if it does (and I'm guessing that there is reason to believe that it might) then there is, at the very least, a significant constitutional question. Based on existing principles of constitutional law, there is also reason to believe, in that circumstance, that the adminstration is acting extra-constitutionally. I'm not sure that it's utterly unreasonable for some to believe that this Administration -- an Administration seeking to establish an Imperial Executive -- might disregard the constitutional rights of some citizens if it believes that it serves some self-defined purpose.

The administration claims it is acting within its constitutional authority in these programs and there is no evidence to contrary. Well, that was certainly worth destroying a valuable intelligence tool to determine.
People who devote their entire lives to studying the Constitution and who know significantly more about it than either you or me are convinced that there is, at the very least, a constitutional question raised by the program in question. To that end, there are certainly reasons to question the Administration's credibility when it comes it self-serving claims in support of actions it is taking or wishes to take. The very existence of those concerns, coupled with the troubling constitutional questions raised by this program itself, are enough to provide reasonable doubts about a claim that the program operates in a constitutional fashion. I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue that the need to gather intelligence is somehow greater than the need to assure the protection of constitutional rights -- I certainly wouldn't consider any such person to be a patriot, since the Constitution defines the very essence of what makes America great.

Yonivore

10-31-2007, 11:25 AM

That's not correct. You can have a constitutional violation inasmuch as someone's rights are being violated; the issue is that the person whose rights are being violated may not know (or be able to prove) that he or she, specifically, has been harmed. The inability to prove that a specific person was harmed does not make the program free of constitutional questions.
I doesn't make the program fraught with them either. And, back to one of my original points; unless opponents produce evidence of the actual constitutional violation [which they haven't] or someone that has been verifiably harmed by the program [which they haven't], it doesn't justify the destruction of what is claimed to have been a valuable intelligence asset.

Because there is reason to believe that the program functions in an extra-constitutional manner. Both the Fourth Amendment and FISA require warrants to undertake such surveillance, and it's clear that the program operates (or, perhaps, operated) without seeking warrants. The sole question is whether it has been used to obtain information about American citizens; if it does (and I'm guessing that there is reason to believe that it might) then there is, at the very least, a significant constitutional question. Based on existing principles of constitutional law, there is also reason to believe, in that circumstance, that the adminstration is acting extra-constitutionally. I'm not sure that it's utterly unreasonable for some to believe that this Administration -- an Administration seeking to establish an Imperial Executive -- might disregard the constitutional rights of some citizens if it believes that it serves some self-defined purpose.
A lot of ifs and perhapses in that paragraph.

What reason is there to believe the program functions in an extra-constitutional manner?

The Fourth amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits "unreasonable" searches. It doesn't address the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the administration's application of the NSA surveillance program in question.

The administration claims their application constitutes a reasonable search and, therefore, does not require a warrant. The administration's opponents claim -- without a shred of proof -- it violates the 4th amendment. Pony up the evidence.

And, as for FISA, the executive is bound by a congressional act insofar as it does not infringe on his own constitutional obligations.

People who devote their entire lives to studying the Constitution and who know significantly more about it than either you or me are convinced that there is, at the very least, a constitutional question raised by the program in question.
There are people who devote their entire lives to studying the Constitution and who know significantly more about it than either you or me that are equally convinced the question would be settled in favor of the executive branch and therefore does not warrant the trashing of what purports to be a valuable intelligence asset right in the middle of a war.

To that end, there are certainly reasons to question the Administration's credibility when it comes it self-serving claims in support of actions it is taking or wishes to take.
Not without evidence to the contrary.

The very existence of those concerns,
Shared only by the president's political opponents.

coupled with the troubling constitutional questions raised by this program itself, are enough to provide reasonable doubts about a claim that the program operates in a constitutional fashion.
I disagree and, I figure that, while it is not my disagreement that has prevented this from being hauled into the courts it is the disagreement of highly intelligent people -- with a grasp on constitutional law -- that happen to agree with me, that have prevented this from being hauled into the courts.

I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue that the need to gather intelligence is somehow greater than the need to assure the protection of constitutional rights -- I certainly wouldn't consider any such person to be a patriot, since the Constitution defines the very essence of what makes America great.
Your argument presumes the administration is conducting warrantless surveillance on people who enjoy constitutional protections. That is not the administration's argument.

Yonivore

10-31-2007, 12:02 PM

PixelPusher

10-31-2007, 03:32 PM

I read this paragraph again and have a question for you.

How can someone's rights be violated without them being harmed? And, more specifically, how is someone harmed without knowing it?

Harm is a tangible manifestation of an alleged constitutional violation. Without harm, there is no constitutional violation.
The peeping tom that was looking in on your wife undressing wasn't trespassing or violating your privacy because no one noticed him. More brilliant legal reasoning from Yonivore.

Wild Cobra

10-31-2007, 04:09 PM

Wild Cobra

10-31-2007, 04:11 PM

Precisely because the Bush Administration doesn't want it to go to the judiciary, hence the hasty move to send Padilla to a civilian court before they got nailed by the Supreme Court.
That wasn't the point.

Q) Why haven't detractors taken this to court...

A) The haven't because the courts would rule in favor of the president!

Wild Cobra

10-31-2007, 04:15 PM

So getting back on topic are we still trying to say that Obama does not have love in his heart for A-merry-ca because of no hand on his heart bullshit?
It is a question to consider.

He is applying for the job of commander in chief. He has not yet learned to 'lead by example' since he cannot render such a simple honor to the flag.

A one time oooops... I can live with. One of his own people is quoted as saying something like "sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't."

I don't know about you, but the principle of it bothers the hell out of me. But then, I’m just a proud American veteran. I would bother me to be in the military and serve under such a man.

clambake

10-31-2007, 04:20 PM

It is a question to consider.

He is applying for the job of commander in chief. He has not yet learned to 'lead by example' since he cannot render such a simple honor to the flag.

A one time oooops... I can live with. One of his own people is quoted as saying something like "sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't."

I don't know about you, but the principle of it bothers the hell out of me. But then, I’m just a proud American veteran. I would bother me to be in the military and serve under such a man.
we have since found out that it's important for our president to be an exceptional, intelligent person.

bush is a "special" person.

Yonivore

10-31-2007, 04:51 PM

So getting back on topic are we still trying to say that Obama does not have love in his heart for A-merry-ca because of no hand on his heart bullshit?
Because little things can say a lot about a person's character.

PixelPusher

10-31-2007, 05:37 PM

Because little things can say a lot about a person's character.
Really?

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a394/jamackey/picknosez9wk.gif

Mr. Peabody

11-07-2007, 07:44 PM

Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2177669/)

BETTENDORF, Iowa—A scurrilous new e-mail is circulating about Barack Obama. Over the last few months there were the ones that suggested he was secretly hiding his Muslim faith. The messages suggest he refused to pledge allegiance this summer at a steak fry hosted by Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin.

Nutty rumors are always circulating about candidates. The Republicans spread their own in the run-up to the August straw poll. Usually campaigns can ignore them. To engage a made-up claim only gives it unwanted attention. What makes this one a problem is that it appears to have penetrated deeply into the pool of voters Obama is courting. They asked about the pledge at the first two town halls kicking off his five-day tour here. Since building support for the Iowa caucuses relies on word-of-mouth, rumors are all the more dangerous. Here's how Obama dealt with the issue:

Tuesday night in Cedar Rapids, a woman stood, describing herself as "a mother of two small children trying to instill how important it is to be politically minded." As her young son stood behind her she asked about the e-mail charge, which she said had her son "very concerned."

Obama, who has already had to deal with a flap over wearing a flag pin, explained that the picture included in the e-mail was taken during the singing of the national anthem, not the Pledge of Allegiance. "I've been pledging allegiance to the flag since I was 3," he said. For that act of patriotism, he puts his hand over his heart, he said, but he doesn't do so when he's listening to the national anthem. (The U.S. flag code has a different view.) Regarding the woman's son, he said, "You let him know I'll come by his school and we'll say the pledge together."

In Muscatine on Wednesday, another woman asked about the pledge e-mail. This time, Obama, who was understandably exasperated, treated the question as ludicrous—as if someone had suggested that he's not black (which, come to think of it, they have). "I was taught by my grandfather to put my hand on my heart with the pledge and with the Star Spangled Banner, you sing, so that's what I did. ... I've been pledging allegiance since I was 3. I lead the pledge when I open the United States Senate. It's on C-SPAN."
John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of On Her Trail. He can be reached at [email protected].