Reply With Quote
These details may be true. I still don't see how the House has such powers that are enforceable. I wouldn't question this so much if it came from the senate.
No, you thought you knew what I was thinking.
I'll admit to being partisan for conservative ideals. Not for republican.
Absolutely wrong.
That does not compute.
I disagree. He was targeted and prosecuted for a mixup of facts. Not intentional lies.
I don't know of that case, at least I don't recall what it is about. If there is evidence there are non-partisan legal methods available.
These details may be true. I still don't see how the House has such powers that are enforceable. I wouldn't question this so much if it came from the senate.
Where is that right to privacy in the cons ution? I don't recall that as an absolute. There is a qualifier "unreasonable" within the language, isn't there?
If privacy a common law right?
First of all I will accept the lable conservative, libertarian, or cons utionalist. I have never been, nor will I ever be a republican. They are simply the lesser of two evil parties.
As for dictatorship? Which party wished to keep the impoverished in their place by giving social programs rather than insiting they rise to support themselves? You can only be dictatorial over those who depend on you. I want a limited government that does not cater to individual intersets, but the general wealfare as spelled out in the preamble.
Again, are you saying that any congressional investigation of the executive amounts to the equivalent of a trial following impeachment?
@ WC only answering FWDT's points that don't put him under the gun. Crafty SOB that one. Not that you can't see right through all his bull in this thread. Here, I'll post the ones you chose to ignore, just so that in the odd chance you might have missed them WC, you can address them this time.
Well, but if the branches are equal that doesn't mean that one can just ignore the other when it damned well pleases. If you imbue either branch with that power, you're making it superior and the Cons ution clearly does not contemplate that sort of heirarchy in the federal government.Oh, but the investigatory power of a congressional body is not either: (1) inherent in the office; or (2) a matter of agreed-upon common law? It's only valid if specifically spelled out in the Cons ution?
That's an interesting contention on your part, given the long history of congressional investigation in this country of ours.I don't even bother with xray anymore. That old fart is senile and stubborn in his ignorance. He'd vote republican even if it meant putting America under a dictator just so as he can say his "team" won... pfff. Same goes for a lot of democrats in here. The dude represents everything that's ed up with present day politics. Its never about ideals and principles anymore, its about ing sides. HEY XRAY!! NEWSFLASH! THIS ISN'T SPORTS!!
Last edited by MaNuMaNiAc; 07-12-2008 at 04:10 AM.
He already thinks he is a Messiah, in every sense of the word. No one may tell the Messiah he has no clothes on, speak his name, mention his ears, talk about he is (half) black, mention his religious leaders, speak of his bomber friends. Going to Germany to make a campaign speech, like JFK and Reagan (after they were President). Oh and don't forget his wife is off limits too. And do not forget his next door neighbor and friend, who is a criminal. Do real estate deals together. Yeah, he is a real jewel and a real dimm-o-crap in every sense of the word. But he is clean and well spoken according to dimm-o-crapic sources.
But when Republicans in Congress try to subpoena Obama's aides, you won't be complaining about any assertions of executive privilege, right?
Executive privilege was claimed by President George Washington. And you are right, it is not in the Cons ution. But the Supreme Court has ruled that it exist.
Quote from Wikipedia:
In the United States government, executive privilege is the power (reserve power) claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain search warrants and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Cons ution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Cons utional activity.[1]
The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "'essential to the justice of the case.'"(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.
Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with the United States Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the do ents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis."
If you want to look at an extensive essay on the executive privilege then
go to this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executi...rly_precedents
It has many, many footnotes.
Precisely the same statements are true of the right to privacy.
Two points. Look at my post above, it answers the points you made.
I don't even bother with xray anymore. That old fart is senile and stubborn in his ignorance. He'd vote republican even if it meant putting America under a dictator just so as he can say his "team" won... pfff. Same goes for a lot of democrats in here. The dude represents everything that's ed up with present day politics. Its never about ideals and principles anymore, its about ing sides. HEY XRAY!! NEWSFLASH! THIS ISN'T SPORTS!!
Secondly, you are absolutely correct. This isn't sports. It is about YOUR future. Mine is for a short period only. And you damn well better think about what they (dimms) are offering or better still what they are wanting to take away from YOU. Government is not the solution to much of anything, it is the problem in most cases. Politicians are good at only one thing. Getting elected. All of them, Republicans or dimm-o-craps. I am like WC, I don't claim to be a Republican and I don't and didn't support George Bush or his administration in ALL things. Bush is really a lib at heart, just as his Daddy was. Part D of Medicare kinda give you that information. Almost the first bill out of his administration was written by a flaming Liberal. Teddy, the swimmer, Kennedy. Bush and his, Cant we just get Along philosophy.
Hasn't the present bunch in Washington taught you anything. Pork so fat that it would actually kill someone who ate it. Another form of government welfare. I don't know about you, but I am sick of it. From both sides of the aisle. And I have told my representatives that if they worked for me personally they would have already been fired. Have you? This crap of "no one works with anyone" gets a little old. Who normally caves, it aint the dimm-o-craps. Pelosi want even bring up energy or a bill to allow drilling. I guess you like the four bucks a gallon for gas. I damn sure don't. And friend-o, ethenol might sound wonderful and be YOUR salvation and all these bright ideas of conservation might ring your bell, but everytime I hear a politician say conservation I grap my billfold cause it is going to cost me and YOU. I could cite you many, many examples. Gasoline being just one of them.
So you make fun of an old man like me, but I have seen them all, from
Roosevelt right on down to the present. I have heard all the arguments and listen to all the BS but politicans are what they are. POLITICANS.
They want and crave only one thing: Power!. The scary thing is that the folks we used scoff at and make fun of are now taken seriously and are affecting YOURS and MY life. I happen to not like it. You keep promoting them, my boy, because you will have to live under their
RULE. And I do mean RULE. Enjoy your mercury filled CFL's and the little tin can you put on to go to work. Or maybe you prefer a bicycle.
I don't recall I ever said that it didn't exist.
xray..you know that if you are honest with yourself that Bush thinks he is above the law. One would say HE thinks he is the messiah. Or at least King.
It's good to know x and WC believe that Obama and his administration should be allowed to operate unen bered by congressional oversight. Surely they will defend his executive privilege as doggedly as they do for Bush. I expect them to suck Obama's too. Gotta be consistent.
In the first place I didn't say "unen bered". I said "fishing expedition".
And yes if Obama is President, which I suspect he will be, then I would be opposed to Congress going on a fishing expedition. The have all the investigators in the world and many sources to obtain information from without all the showboating and speechifying with a committee.
I would also support Obama in a war should we become involved in one, even Iran.
Did you know that much speculation was made that Roosevelt pulled us into WWII, and it still exist. But funny thing. Everyone supported the country and Roosevelt. And we won, just like we are doing in Iraq, despite the party of surrender not supporting our troops or country.
He will already be invovled in two the second he steps into office.I would also support Obama in a war should we become involved in one, even Iran.
I'm sure he thanks you in advance for your support.
At least he knows I would support him, hence, my country. Might try it, you may like it, Mikie!
One does not equal the other, but I'll remember you said it come January.
\
Do that. But also remember I will not support him on domestic issues that I don't like. Whole different ballgame. And on foreign issues if comes to surrendering our victories like the dimms did with Viet Nam.
So you just lied.
That's ok, I'm used to it.
Seeing as how Wikipedia has as much credibility as Fox news, it's no surprise you chose them as the source to back up your "argument".
Nice going, ray.
I think what he was trying to get at is that it is inconsistent to claim you want a strict reading of the cons ution for some issues but not for others.
When it comes to abortion, most Republicans disagree with the argument for a cons utional right to privacy under the 14th amendment, mostly because it is not an explicit right.
To then argue that executive privilege is implicitly granted under the cons ution, similar to the right to privacy, just because it happens to serve your political agenda of the moment, reeks of hypocrisy.
I'm not saying that either. Just that the powers are divided differently by cons ution.
So, again, tell me where the Cons ution expressly vests the Senate with the exclusive power to investigate the actions of the executive -- outside of trials of impeachment.
And, once more, if the power of the House is in such question, why isn't Rove's contention with respect to this subpoena a claim that it is void (i.e., issued by a body with no power)? By asserting a claim of privilege, it sure looks as though Rove and the White House don't dispute the validity of an investigation by the House; they just think they can't be made to testify to the House because the information they have is somehow privileged. Those are two very different questions and reliance on the latter would seem to presume the invalidity of the former.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 07-13-2008 at 11:32 AM.
You must be part frog the way you jump to conclusions.
You must have set a new speed record for backpedaling.
You'll start hating the US next January. We get it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
