Meanwhile, back at the Looney Bin...

[xrayzebra]

^^I answered your question.

But then you knew the answer before you ask the question.

[George Gervin's Afro]

do you ever have a thought that doesn't morph into a Rush wet dream?

I asked you if you no longer valued values.

I guess yo could say that neither of us needs an entertainer to tell us how to think...

[Wild Cobra]

I thought Yoni was a libertarian.

And, you'd be right. Why would attacking Hillary Clinton be reserved for Republicans alone?

Most the libertarians I know hate Hillary as much as the repiblicans! She is an 'authoritarian' and that is opposite of 'libertarian' views. As opposite and liberal vs. conservative!

[Wild Cobra]

As do I... so does the president get to run rough shod over the cons ution if she is a democrat Yoni?

I'll answer that part. The president must abide by the cons ution. He does not have to abide by laws that tie his hands from his Executive Powers or as Commander in Chief. The fourth amendment protect from UNREASONABLE search and seizure!

[Yonivore]

I want Yoni on the record for this one..

Well, first, I don't believe she'll ever be President of the United States but if, through some electoral calamity, that should happen, she'll be en led to, obligated to and responsible for all the Cons utional powers of the executive branch of this government.

Clear enough for you George?

[Wild Cobra]

But of course you will support all the powers she will inherit from Bush.

You concern is a key reason why any patriotic and informed citizen will vote against her.

[Yonivore]

This sums up nicely how close minded you and your ilk are. Your not even going to wait for her to get into office. I have no problem with people voicing their criticisms but it becomes blinded when you won't allow them to get into office before you do.

So, we should just allow someone we believe will work to destroy the country, with her socialist agenda, and who is an alleged criminal, to get into office before we criticize her?

What the for?

[Yonivore]

As do I... so does the president get to run rough shod over the cons ution if she is a democrat Yoni?

Tell me where President Bush has run "roughshod" over the Cons ution.

[exstatic]

Wiretapping without a warrant when a secret court that allows post tap warrants is available qualifies....

[Yonivore]

Wiretapping without a warrant when a secret court that allows post tap warrants is available qualifies....

Actually, the Cons utional question over whether FISA supercedes the President's war powers is still up in the air. There's been no finding upholding your view.

Warrantless wire taps of the enemy, regardless of where they may be located or whether or not their communication travels into, out of, or through the United States, has never required a warrant in past presidencies.

But, if it helps, I be fine with a President Hillary Clinton authorizing warrantless wiretaps on suspected terrorists and on people talking to suspected terrorists, no matter where the are.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, the Cons utional question over whether FISA supercedes the President's war powers is still up in the air. There's been no finding upholding your view.

Warrantless wire taps of the enemy, regardless of where they may be located or whether or not their communication travels into, out of, or through the United States, has never required a warrant in past presidencies.

But, if it helps, I be fine with a President Hillary Clinton authorizing warrantless wiretaps on suspected terrorists and on people talking to suspected terrorists, no matter where the are.

Well said, but I'd like to add that a warrant is an order to take actions, not permission. Just look in any legal dictionary. The president does not need permission, and especially be ordered to do something. He has cons utional authority, and the question should be how much of it can he delegate.

[Wild Cobra]

rofl at these 2 cons utional scholars

Wow... It's very clear cut. Ever read the cons ution?

[spurster]

"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces"

"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

Ok, scholars which one applies to Congress and which one applies to the President.

[exstatic]

Line one is congress, and line two is the prez.

[Wild Cobra]

"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces"

Basic government. Not the executive branch.

"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

Yes, that is a responsibility of the 'executor'. He still has the power to ignore them as needed to fulfill the highest laws. The cons ution.

Ok, scholars which one applies to Congress and which one applies to the President.

The first is a power of congress from Article 1, the second lies in Article 2, dealing with the president.

Laws for basic government and the military are done by congress.

The president is expected to "faithfully" see that laws are enforced. A deeper look at the word "faithfully" from a 19th century dictionary:

faithfully

In a faithful manner; loyally; sincerely; honestly; truthfully.

fathful

2. Firmly adhering to duty; of true fidelity; loyal; true to allegiance; constant in the performance of duty or services; loyal and firm in fidelity; constant; exact in attending to commands; as, a faithful servant; a faithful subject; a faithful husband or wife.

Well, I don't see any implication of following the letter of the law. More so that it is how the 'executor' believes it should apply. "Firmly adhering to duty" and "true to allegiance," to me means he must favor expedience over laws that bind.

The president is responsible for protecting this nation.

The fourth amendment only protects against unreasonable search and seizure. There is nothing unreasonable about checking upon people who are linked to terrorists.

There is no law that congress can make to keep the president from faithfully doing as he thinks is necessary to keep our freedoms secured. They must amend the cons ution to make it binding.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So, we should just allow someone we believe will work to destroy the country, with her socialist agenda, and who is an alleged criminal, to get into office before we criticize her?

What the for?

So 'you believe' she will? That's it?

How about a former alcoholic and drug user? Would that qualify as alleged criminal? What about someone with DWI's?

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Actually, the Cons utional question over whether FISA supercedes the President's war powers is still up in the air. There's been no finding upholding your view.

Warrantless wire taps of the enemy, regardless of where they may be located or whether or not their communication travels into, out of, or through the United States, has never required a warrant in past presidencies.

But, if it helps, I be fine with a President Hillary Clinton authorizing warrantless wiretaps on suspected terrorists and on people talking to suspected terrorists, no matter where the are.

Dude...what enemy? When was the last time this nation has declared war? President Bush can't just conjure up some rhetorical flourish "the war on terror" and use his "war powers" which up until now have been well contained as they were intended to (the president gets to control the armed forces, be the commander in chief.... it doesn't mean all the things bush wants it to mean)

and some other things to consider:

Torture

indefinite detention of US citizens (see Padilla, Jose)

signing statements (i know yoni would have a fit if a democrat pulled that )

an overall aggressive interpretation of war powers

classifies every inconsequential do ent he wants to citing national security (remember the Saudi links that were classified in the 9/11 report)

His unprecedented assertions of executive privilege

and his aggressive politicization of federal agencies (especially the justice department)


alright....go plagiarize some blogs, i eagerly await your response in defense of your dear leader

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, the Cons utional question over whether FISA supercedes the President's war powers is still up in the air.

I have yet to see a case presented where the FISA procedure would actually need to be cir vented.

[spurster]

Basic government. Not the executive branch.

And I thought the Executive Branch was part of the government. Something about the three branches of the US government (four if you count Cheney). Silly me.

[Yonivore]

So 'you believe' she will? That's it?

Yeah, and what other justification do I need to attack her at every opportunity? Why should she get a pass until she's in office?

That'd be pretty stupid, no?

How about a former alcoholic and drug user? Would that qualify as alleged criminal? What about someone with DWI's?

All raised during the President's election bid and, yet, he was still elected. Cry me a river.

[Yonivore]

Dude...what enemy?

If you're that clueless, what's the point in even getting to the finer points of separation of power?

When was the last time this nation has declared war? President Bush can't just conjure up some rhetorical flourish "the war on terror" and use his "war powers" which up until now have been well contained as they were intended to (the president gets to control the armed forces, be the commander in chief.... it doesn't mean all the things bush wants it to mean)

I guess you missed that whole, Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq, passed by Congress in 2002. I suggest you read it, you'll find the President was pretty much given just the power you suggest he has grabbed -- by Congress. Many of your heroes voted in favor of that AUMF.

They're in control now, why not rescind the AUMF?

I'll tell you why. They know there's an enemy out there and all this nonsense is political mumbo jumbo. They have no intention of taking away the president's prerogative in this war...they just want to about it to dupes like you.

and some other things to consider:

Torture

Al Qaeda does it. No proof we've engaged in it.

indefinite detention of US citizens (see Padilla, Jose)

May he burn in where he belongs.

signing statements (i know yoni would have a fit if a democrat pulled that )

Clinton used them. So did many other Presidents. I don't recall "having a fit."

All the signing statements declare is that the president will rely on his cons utional power where the law and it conflict. Would you rather he veto?

an overall aggressive interpretation of war powers

And, thank God for that!

classifies every inconsequential do ent he wants to citing national security (remember the Saudi links that were classified in the 9/11 report)

No, I don't.

His unprecedented assertions of executive privilege

Not unprecendented. Clinton tried to claim executive privilege to keep the nation from learning of his crimes and dalliances. At least in this case, the president is actually trying to preserve national security.

and his aggressive politicization of federal agencies (especially the justice department)

Janet Reno.

alright....go plagiarize some blogs, i eagerly await your response in defense of your dear leader

No plagiarism necessary on this one.

[Wild Cobra]

Dude...what enemy? When was the last time this nation has declared war?

Where does the cons ution say that a war must be formally declared?

President Bush can't just conjure up some rhetorical flourish "the war on terror" and use his "war powers" which up until now have been well contained as they were intended to (the president gets to control the armed forces, be the commander in chief.... it doesn't mean all the things bush wants it to mean)

I wasn't aware he conjured it up. Interesting. I assume the whole 9/11 incident was an illusion?

Conjurers, illusionists... What's next?

Gary Gygax for president?

and some other things to consider:

Torture

What torture? You have to change the definition to claim any torture has happened.

indefinite detention of US citizens (see Padilla, Jose)

I thought all prisoners of war were held captive until the war was over. Isn't that the historical standard?

signing statements (i know yoni would have a fit if a democrat pulled that )

Now I may be wrong about this. I only looked at one signing statement. It was nothing more than the president affirming he did not have to follow the law passed by congress. They do not supercede him!

an overall aggressive interpretation of war powers

Not by my assessment.

classifies every inconsequential do ent he wants to citing national security (remember the Saudi links that were classified in the 9/11 report)

Who are you t say what should and shouldn't be classified?

His unprecedented assertions of executive privilege

LOL... Nothing unprecedented about it.

and his aggressive politicization of federal agencies (especially the justice department)

I thought political appointments were always political. Am I wrong? What am I missing?