NationStates Jolt Archive

The trick is right clicking and opting to open it. That was a fun thing to learn.
The tools still work - you just need wherewithal. For some, more daunting a task than others, it would appear.


thppppppp (raspberries) :rolleyes: Nice try. Still didn't work. What's next, Boy Genius?

thppppppp (raspberries) :rolleyes:
Believe it or not, i was attempting to be helpful, albeit in my usual arsehole fashion. :D
I have a peculiar relationship with this particular forum, much to the chagrin of a few people who, for example, try to ascertain my actual real-time attendance. *shrug*
What i don't like is how many useful posts got lost in the server swap :(

thppppppp (raspberries) :rolleyes: Nice try. Still didn't work. What's next, Boy Genius?
Right click on "Search Forum", top right of threadlist.
Opt "open"
It moves you to the bottom of the page, and gives you a topic bank.
Start from there.

At least, that's what happens when the forum actually likes you.

Right click on "Search Forum", top right of threadlist.
Opt "open"
It moves you to the bottom of the page, and gives you a topic bank.
Start from there.

At least, that's what happens when the forum actually likes you.

That worked, although it is more than a little circuitous. I will therefore only use it in situations of great need.

Thanks.

But if you tell anyone that I said this, why I'll do nothing of course, but I'll do it eloquently and with great aplomb.

Expect no less. :D

That worked, although it is more than a little circuitous. I will therefore only use it in situations of great need.
Agreed, which is why i am on occasion loathe to qualify arguments i've already had with other people, even if it was pretty succinct the first time.


Thanks.

But if you tell anyone that I said this, why I'll do nothing of course, but I'll do it eloquently and with great aplomb.

Expect no less. :D
Word. :D
Actually, if anyone asks, i'll probably just mumble something about camping. ;)

Generally, yes. But if the elements of the crime require intent, then you can't break that law unless you did so intentionally.

agreed. But violating privacy through illegal wiretaps does not need malicious intent.

And he wouldn't pass his physical or bother finishing his term anyway. If his deferrments didn't work, that is.

He actually did finish his term Straughn.

agreed. But violating privacy through illegal wiretaps does not need malicious intent.

And the thing is, you have to show proof that they were, in fact, illegal.

And the thing is, you have to show proof that they were, in fact, illegal.
It doesn't have to be indictable to be shown as an abuse of power.

It doesn't have to be indictable to be shown as an abuse of power.

Actually if you listen to what the dems are saying, they would've approved precisely what Bush is doing.

On another note, why woulld you want your enemies to know that you are spying on them? A public law like that would do just that. In fact, that is even worse than being anonymous and break National Security Laws and spilling the beans that we are spying on overseas telecommunications of suspected terrorists calling the States.

Actually if you listen to what the dems are saying, they would've approved precisely what Bush is doing.

On another note, why woulld you want your enemies to know that you are spying on them? A public law like that would do just that. In fact, that is even worse than being anonymous and break National Security Laws and spilling the beans that we are spying on overseas telecommunications of suspected terrorists calling the States.
Just because I believe Democrats are the lesser evil, doesn't make me a Democrat. There are plenty of things I disagree with in the Democratic party. Will the Democrats let all this shit slide, yeah. Probably. Which sucks. But that doesn't mean that I, and a lot of people like me, approve of what Bush is doing.

Just because I believe Democrats are the lesser evil, doesn't make me a Democrat. There are plenty of things I disagree with in the Democratic party. Will the Democrats let all this shit slide, yeah. Probably. Which sucks. But that doesn't mean that I, and a lot of people like me, approve of what Bush is doing.

Hey, there are somethings I do not approve Bush doing either. I don't agree with some of the Republican party either just like i do not agree with some of what the Democrats are doing either.

Hey, there are somethings I do not approve Bush doing either. I don't agree with some of the Republican party either just like i do not agree with some of what the Democrats are doing either.
Well... then... so, there!

It doesn't have to be indictable to be shown as an abuse of power.

You still have to prove that an abuse of power took place.

He actually did finish his term Straughn.
No, he actually didn't. He was working for a senator in a southern state for the remainder of supposed service time. Just because they didn't argue his dismissal doesn't mean that he "finished" anything.
The onus is on you to provide otherwise. I've substantiated this a year ago.

No, he actually didn't. He was working for a senator in a southern state for the remainder of supposed service time. Just because they didn't argue his dismissal doesn't mean that he "finished" anything.
The onus is on you to provide otherwise. I've substantiated this a year ago.

Then why is it public knowledge that he actually did complete his term?

I agree, Bush should be impeared!! :)

Then why is it public knowledge that he actually did complete his term?
because the corporate media doesnt do investigative journalism ever since the neocons hijacked it

Then why is it public knowledge that he actually did complete his term?
"Public knowledge" doesn't explain his sporadic guard records appearing and disappearing 4 times during the election run versus Kerry. I'd wager you, being public, didn't know that either. So my faith isn't in "public" knowledge.

CanuckHeaven, IIRC, has actually seen the material i'm talking about here, posted by me and a few others. It was, as i said, during the election run.

EDIT: I should point out that Bush didn't personally dismiss the INFORMATION in the guard memo, only the format since it was, indeed, a reprint.

news junkie that I am I also remember a story a few years ago about a suspcious fire...

"Public knowledge" doesn't explain his sporadic guard records appearing and disappearing 4 times during the election run versus Kerry. I'd wager you, being public, didn't know that either. So my faith isn't in "public" knowledge.

CanuckHeaven, IIRC, has actually seen the material i'm talking about here, posted by me and a few others. It was, as i said, during the election run.

EDIT: I should point out that Bush didn't personally dismiss the INFORMATION in the guard memo, only the format since it was, indeed, a reprint.

Ah thanks for the clarification :)

Now i'm off to bed. See you all sometime tomorrow :)

news junkie that I am I also remember a story a few years ago about a suspcious fire...
You are right, indeed. The same fire that supposedly destroyed the OFFICIAL source material that would have completed Bush's service records, or at least something similar that resulted in the "heat damage" that rendered verification useless.
Yes, i think we're talking about the same material ... and when that "fire" (or whatever it was) occurred, the records had *ALREADY disappeared AND reappeared. That's two. The fire's three.
And when they "found out" the source material "hadn't been destroyed", that also made the news, meaning the number 4. And 5 is right out.

*bows*

Ah thanks for the clarification :)

Now i'm off to bed. See you all sometime tomorrow :)
Actually, i should clarify further:
When i said "guard memo", i was talking about the one that got Dan Rather and a couple of other dudes in hot water. The info was indeed valid, but the a couple blogs did a supreme job of changing the subject publicly, and the rest is obviously "his"tory.

Lookie: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a4x6M3Dyr6jM&refer=us

Oh, no. Absolutely no evidence of abuse of power going on.

Lookie: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a4x6M3Dyr6jM&refer=us

Oh, no. Absolutely no evidence of abuse of power going on.

Now why don't you explain why you believe this is abuse of power? President Bush can authorize military tribunals as he is the commander in chief of the US military.

Now why don't you explain why you believe this is abuse of power? President Bush can authorize military tribunals as he is the commander in chief of the US military.
I agree with these two statements from another article:
Lawyers for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who is awaiting trial by military tribunal at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, say Bush has claimed unprecedented power "to dispense life imprisonment and death through a judicial system of his own design."
"In 2004 the court said there is no such thing as unlimited executive power, even in wartime, but it left for another day the substantive rights any individuals have," says Deborah Pearlstein of the New York-based group Human Rights First. "This is really the Supreme Court's first opportunity to put meat on the bones of those rights."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-27-hamdan_x.htm

Sorry for the quoted answer, I have to get to work.

I agree with these two statements from another article:
Lawyers for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who is awaiting trial by military tribunal at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, say Bush has claimed unprecedented power "to dispense life imprisonment and death through a judicial system of his own design."
"In 2004 the court said there is no such thing as unlimited executive power, even in wartime, but it left for another day the substantive rights any individuals have," says Deborah Pearlstein of the New York-based group Human Rights First. "This is really the Supreme Court's first opportunity to put meat on the bones of those rights."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-27-hamdan_x.htm

Sorry for the quoted answer, I have to get to work.

Considering that the President does have precedent on his side in the terms of setting up Military Tribunals. The Supreme Court ruled in the past that the President has the right to set up military tribunals because he is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He doesn't need Congressional Approval to set these up. So tell me, how this is abuse of power?

Considering that the President does have precedent on his side in the terms of setting up Military Tribunals. The Supreme Court ruled in the past that the President has the right to set up military tribunals because he is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He doesn't need Congressional Approval to set these up. So tell me, how this is abuse of power?
"The Lincoln and Roosevelt-era military tribunals took place in time of war, they point out, but Congress has not officially declared war in this case, so the president cannot assume wartime powers."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1701789.stm

Again, sorry for the quoted answer. I'm at work, now. I'll try to give a better one at lunch.

"The Lincoln and Roosevelt-era military tribunals took place in time of war, they point out, but Congress has not officially declared war in this case, so the president cannot assume wartime powers."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1701789.stm

Again, sorry for the quoted answer. I'm at work, now. I'll try to give a better one at lunch.

Lincoln never declared War on the South either in case you have forgotten. And we are in a time of war. Congress has authorized the President to use Military Action against Iraq and Afghanistan, effectively putting us in a state of war.

Since we are in a state of war, the President has the authority to set up Military Tribunals.

If Congress hadn't given consent to military action, then I could agree with you. However, they did consent to military action. Since they did, the rules change.

Lincoln never declared War on the South either in case you have forgotten. And we are in a time of war. Congress has authorized the President to use Military Action against Iraq and Afghanistan, effectively putting us in a state of war.

Since we are in a state of war, the President has the authority to set up Military Tribunals.

If Congress hadn't given consent to military action, then I could agree with you. However, they did consent to military action. Since they did, the rules change.
"Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal."
http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm

Lincoln also felt he was working within the rights of the constitution since he considered it a time of rebellion.

"Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal."
http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm

Lincoln also felt he was working within the rights of the constitution since he considered it a time of rebellion.

You are indeed correct. However, I can make a similiar case in the interest of National Security, that these trials be done the way they are being done. We are dealing with Classified intelligence for most of these trials. Also, these people, some at least, were caught in arms against the United States while not wearing proper designations. That makes them illegal combatants under International Law. What is the Supreme Court gonna do? Rewrite International Law?

Also, notice the year! It says 1866. That is 1 year AFTER the Civil War ended and Habeus Corpus re-installed.

You are indeed correct. However, I can make a similiar case in the interest of National Security, that these trials be done the way they are being done. We are dealing with Classified intelligence for most of these trials. Also, these people, some at least, were caught in arms against the United States while not wearing proper designations. That makes them illegal combatants under International Law. What is the Supreme Court gonna do? Rewrite International Law?

Also, notice the year! It says 1866. That is 1 year AFTER the Civil War ended and Habeus Corpus re-installed.
They are only combatants as far as this administration tells us they are. The person in question was merely a limo driver for Bin Laden. There has been no mention of him actually fighting against the US Military. And besides, Habeas Corpus is only to be suspended during times of rebellion or invasion, excluding the 1866 declaration.

"According to the Bush administration's brief, "the military has the authority to capture and detain individuals whom it has determined are enemy combatants; including enemy combatants claiming American citizenship. Such combatants, moreover, have no right of access to counsel to challenge their detention." Furthermore, continues the brief, "the Court may not second-guess the military's enemy-combatant determination" because by doing so they would intrude on "the President's plenary authority as Commander in Chief," which supposedly includes the power to establish policies concerning "the capture, detention, and treatment of the enemy and the collection and evaluation of intelligence vital to national security."

The Supreme Court struck down that claim in the 1866 case Ex Parte Milligan, ruling that "martial rule can never exist where the Courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction."

The 1943 case Ex Parte Quirin, which dealt with a military tribunal for eight accused Nazi saboteurs (including an American citizen), upheld using such courts in the context of a declared war. There is simply no justification in the Constitution, law, or precedent for the Bush administration's claim that a president, exercising "plenary authority," can authorize military commanders to designate individuals as "enemy combatants" and hold them indefinitely without trial."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/07-15-2002/vo18no14_suspending.htm

So, not only are we to just accept that Bush is doing this but, according to him, we don't even have the right to question it.

Would Desperate measures please telegram me why Bush should be impeached??? I realy want to know what LAW in the CONSTITUTION that he broke. Anyone can telegram me the last part!! PLEASE TELL ME!!!:confused: :confused: :eek: :mad:

For the President to be impeached, he MUST violate one article and section under the constitution. I realy want to know which one he violated.:p :p

For the President to be impeached, he MUST violate one article and section under the constitution. I realy want to know which one he violated.:p :p


Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.


. . .he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. . .

Let the record show that the Constitution clearly establishes what makes a law, and stipulates that the President must ensure the faithful execution of the law. The Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) clearly meets the criteria for a law, as it was passed by Congress and entered law in the proper manner. Let the record show that the FISA bill also stipulates that the President must inform the Judiciary of their attempts to wiretap citizens of the US, and recieve authorization. The Bush administration did not recieve such authorization. Therefore, the Bush administration violated Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.

Game, set, match.

Let the record show that the Constitution clearly establishes what makes a law, and stipulates that the President must ensure the faithful execution of the law. The Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) clearly meets the criteria for a law, as it was passed by Congress and entered law in the proper manner. Let the record show that the FISA bill also stipulates that the President must inform the Judiciary of their attempts to wiretap citizens of the US, and recieve authorization. The Bush administration did not recieve such authorization. Therefore, the Bush administration violated Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.

Game, set, match.

However, it isn't Game set match. Because if you bothered to pay attention to the public details, 1) Congress would've approved it anyway for domestic purposes, 2) Other presidents have done the exact samething (I know it dont make it right no matter what) and 3) it is mostly being used on incoming FOREIGN Phonecalls meaning, it aint covered under FISA.

*hits the ball back into the far court*

Would Desperate measures please telegram me why Bush should be impeached??? I realy want to know what LAW in the CONSTITUTION that he broke. Anyone can telegram me the last part!! PLEASE TELL ME!!!:confused: :confused: :eek: :mad:
It's all in the thread. You could really ask questions, make statements without being annoying. I believe in you.

However, it isn't Game set match. Because if you bothered to pay attention to the public details, 1) Congress would've approved it anyway for domestic purposes, 2) Other presidents have done the exact samething (I know it dont make it right no matter what) and 3) it is mostly being used on incoming FOREIGN Phonecalls meaning, it aint covered under FISA.

*hits the ball back into the far court*
It's mostly being used for incoming Foreign phone calls? So, maybe it will be used on outgoing phone calls. Maybe it will be used for domestic phone calls. Hey, why not? Terrorists live here, too. And for how long will this be used? As long as there is a noun called Terrorism?

However, it isn't Game set match. Because if you bothered to pay attention to the public details, 1) Congress would've approved it anyway for domestic purposes, 2) Other presidents have done the exact samething (I know it dont make it right no matter what) and 3) it is mostly being used on incoming FOREIGN Phonecalls meaning, it aint covered under FISA.

*hits the ball back into the far court*

All of your points are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. The fact that Congress would have approved of a revised-FISA law that covers such measures is fine and dandy, but it is indisputable that FISA was never revised by Congress, and also indisputable that the FISA provisions in place at the time President Bush undertook his plans outlaw the very actions he took. He knew this, and yet repeatedly and willfully broke the law.

You yourself note that even provided other Presidents broke the law does not make it right, but you are incorrect to say that other Presidents also broke this provision. Both Carter and Clinton deliberately tailored their surveillance policies to accord with FISA, and when they attempted a wiretap they did so with authorization by the Judiciary. The closest Bush can come to making the same claim is that a few select members of the Legislative Branch (note for the politically unaware: a completely different branch than the Judiciary) recieved briefing on the subject, a point which also seems to undermine Point 1; if they were aware of the policy, why did they not act to revise the law?

The third point is also irrelevent: what matters is not where the calls come from, but who is under surveillance. If US citizens are involved, then the FISA bill is applicable. Bush ignored FISA, therefore he broke the law and violated the Constitution.

It's mostly being used for incoming Foreign phone calls? So, maybe it will be used on outgoing phone calls. Maybe it will be used for domestic phone calls. Hey, why not? Terrorists live here, too. And for how long will this be used? As long as there is a noun called Terrorism?

I know domestic wiretapping without a warrent during the Clinton years netted us a US Citizen working for the government in the act of espianoge. Yep. No warrent for that one. No outrage over it either. This was back in the 1990s.

Also, polls show that they actually like tapping foriegn agents phone calls from known terrorists into the United States.

All of your points are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

Actually, all the points I made are very relevent to the discussion at hand.

The fact that Congress would have approved of a revised-FISA law that covers such measures is fine and dandy, but it is indisputable that FISA was never revised by Congress, and also indisputable that the FISA provisions in place at the time President Bush undertook his plans outlaw the very actions he took. He knew this, and yet repeatedly and willfully broke the law.

This you would be correct. Now tell me a President that hasn't skirted FISA to get information on something that is going on within the nation.

You yourself note that even provided other Presidents broke the law does not make it right, but you are incorrect to say that other Presidents also broke this provision. Both Carter and Clinton deliberately tailored their surveillance policies to accord with FISA, and when they attempted a wiretap they did so with authorization by the Judiciary.

This would be in correct in regards to Clinton. He didn't comply with FISA when we caught a spy that was in the pay of a foreign government making phone calls within this nation. FISA was not used. So this is indeed false.

The closest Bush can come to making the same claim is that a few select members of the Legislative Branch (note for the politically unaware: a completely different branch than the Judiciary) recieved briefing on the subject, a point which also seems to undermine Point 1; if they were aware of the policy, why did they not act to revise the law?

Maybe it was because it was ummmm.. Let me think...LEGAL?

The third point is also irrelevent: what matters is not where the calls come from, but who is under surveillance.

Again incorrect. It really does matter to know where the calls are coming from, especially if you are doing a terrorist investigation. When you know the country the person on one end is talking too, you can alert those authorities to bring him in when the time is right.

If US citizens are involved, then the FISA bill is applicable. Bush ignored FISA, therefore he broke the law and violated the Constitution.

Sorry but FISA doesn't not concern calls coming into the nation from foreign nations.

*slams the tennis ball back over the net*

I know domestic wiretapping without a warrent during the Clinton years netted us a US Citizen working for the government in the act of espianoge. Yep. No warrent for that one. No outrage over it either. This was back in the 1990s.

Also, polls show that they actually like tapping foriegn agents phone calls from known terrorists into the United States.
I really am not going to try to defend Clinton. I feel he was better than Bush but there was a lot of shit that he did that was pretty fucked up.

I think I curse more when I'm sick.

Anyway, if this is carried over from the Clinton years, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't stop. And I'm sure if you asked me when I was 10 years old if I wanted my government listening to phone calls terrorists make, I'd have said, "Hell yeah!" But I know a little bit more now about politics and the way the world works. The good guys don't wear white and the villains never blink their eyes. (For good measure, the women never really faint)

if Bush doesnt get impeached then our laws mean nothing

However, it isn't Game set match. Because if you bothered to pay attention to the public details, 1) Congress would've approved it anyway for domestic purposes, 2) Other presidents have done the exact samething (I know it dont make it right no matter what) and 3) it is mostly being used on incoming FOREIGN Phonecalls meaning, it aint covered under FISA.

*hits the ball back into the far court*
I bet you don't remember that little ditty i wrote about FISA and where the legal implications lie, do you?
Well, i'll say that Greenlander isn't liable to forget any time soon, let's put it that way.

if Bush doesnt get impeached then our laws mean nothing

Yea just like Clinton not getting convicted meant that our laws mean nothing :rolleyes:

Yea just like Clinton not getting convicted meant that our laws mean nothing :rolleyes:

Yes, it was such a grave injustice because we all know getting a blowjob in office is a much more severe crime than Dear Leader Il Bushe flip-flopping on the reason the nation invaded a country that had nothing to do with terrorism until after it was occupied and destabilized, leading to a severe drain of military and financial resources from our nation and a brand spanking new terrorist bootcamp where there used to be a nation called Iraq.

Yes, it was such a grave injustice because we all know getting a blowjob in office is a much more severe crime than Dear Leader Il Bushe flip-flopping on the reason the nation invaded a country that had nothing to do with terrorism until after it was occupied and destabilized, leading to a severe drain of military and financial resources from our nation and a brand spanking new terrorist bootcamp where there used to be a nation called Iraq.

Nice sarcasm! However, he lied to a federal Grand Jury. That constitutes Perjury, a criminal offense. It really is sad when we let politicians off for perjurying themselves.

Nice sarcasm! However, he lied to a federal Grand Jury. That constitutes Perjury, a criminal offense. It really is sad when we let politicians off for perjurying themselves.
You know, Corny, one could infer from your post that you otherwise have faith in the word of a politician (on average), that a lie/creative interpretation was an exception to the rule - and your feelings were hurt! ;)

You know, Corny, one could infer from your post that you otherwise have faith in the word of a politician (on average), that a lie/creative interpretation was an exception to the rule - and your feelings were hurt! ;)

Corny's dwelling on technicality as usual. As long as Shrub doesn't get caught technically lying under oath he's perfectly happy to let Il Bushe run the United States into the ground financially and politically. Just like the good little Bushevik he is.

You know, Corny, one could infer from your post that you otherwise have faith in the word of a politician (on average), that a lie/creative interpretation was an exception to the rule - and your feelings were hurt! ;)

LOL! I figure if a politician breaks the law, he should be punished just like any other citizen.

LOL! I figure if a politician breaks the law, he should be punished just like any other citizen.
Really?
"Government watchdogs said the White House's new explanation doesn't clear the president from responsibility for failing to disclose a very large stock sale.

"It doesn't change the fact that it wasn't disclosed in a timely fashion," said Bill Allison, a spokesman for the Center for Public Integrity. "Saying the dog ate my homework isn't an excuse for a third-grader and it shouldn't be an excuse for the president."


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/03/bush.stock/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/07/04/MN133497.DTL&type=printable

LOL! I figure if a politician breaks the law, he should be punished just like any other citizen.
Is it okay, then, for that administration to change the rule OF law to suit its ends, if there be the case?
And this extends, of course, to the base of the Constitution, for which there is already a precedent that the duty UNDER OATH of the president is to uphold? For which, would it also be wrong for that president/administration to instigate shifts and changes in the approach or the judiciousness of the court that deals with constitutional issues, to suit its ends, including changing the law? You know, where there's the balance of power between the judicial, legislative, and the executive?
Are you saying it's okay for that to be the case?

EDIT:Ah, before i finished this post ...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10659196&postcount=301

Corny's dwelling on technicality as usual. As long as Shrub doesn't get caught technically lying under oath he's perfectly happy to let Il Bushe run the United States into the ground financially and politically. Just like the good little Bushevik he is.
He's particularly adept at arguing his point, and i just felt like a smidge of fertilizer to the promise of a long and convoluted debate. :)

Is it okay, then, for that administration to change the rule OF law to suit its ends, if there be the case?

Truth be told no. If this was followed to the letter then every President would've been Impeached. The President is not above the law.

And this extends, of course, to the base of the Constitution, for which there is already a precedent that the duty UNDER OATH of the president is to uphold?

Now your getting on thin Ice here. The oath of office states that the President would faithfully execute the Office of the President and preserve, protect and defend the constitution. Question is, and one I might ask Dr. Glenn as he is the Judiciary Professor and teaches Constitutional Law here at my university (not to mention the head of the government department) is that what constitutes a violation of this and can a president be impeached using this only. You actually got me thinking on this. Thanks! I'll ask him since he's good with this type of stuff.

For which, would it also be wrong for that president/administration to instigate shifts and changes in the approach or the judiciousness of the court that deals with constitutional issues, to suit its ends, including changing the law? You know, where there's the balance of power between the judicial, legislative, and the executive?

Its called checks and balances. Let me ask the people here in the Government Department on this and I'll get back to you ok? You have my word.

Are you saying it's okay for that to be the case?

I'll have to get back to you on this as soon as I consult the head of the Government department.

I'll have to get back to you on this as soon as I consult the head of the Government department.

PatterPatterPatterPatterPatterPatterPatterPatterPatter-SLAM!R-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-VROOOOM!!SCREEEEEEEEE!!

Man, that was a copout straight out of the Simpsons. :D

PatterPatterPatterPatterPatterPatterPatterPatterPatter-SLAM!R-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-VROOOOM!!SCREEEEEEEEE!!

Man, that was a copout straight out of the Simpsons. :D

The head of the Government Department teaches American Judiciary as well as Constitutional Law I and Constitutional Law II.

PatterPatterPatterPatterPatterPatterPatterPatterPatter-SLAM!R-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-VROOOOM!!SCREEEEEEEEE!!

Man, that was a copout straight out of the Simpsons. :D
*FLORT*

:D

As you might imagine, i'm saving this.
To be fair, i'm glad Corneliu's thinking about it. That's what, IMO, this situation merits.

*FLORT*

:D

As you might imagine, i'm saving this.
To be fair, i'm glad Corneliu's thinking about it. That's what, IMO, this situation merits.

I will be asking him as soon as I figure out his office hours. You do have my word Straughn :)

I will be asking him as soon as I figure out his office hours. You do have my word Straughn :)
I trust you. I do appreciate it. *bows*

I trust you. I do appreciate it. *bows*

*bows in return*

I agree with Al Franken. Impeach the bastard on his last few weeks as president, just for kicks.

I agree with Al Franken. Impeach the bastard on his last few weeks as president, just for kicks.
I won't be holding my breath.

I won't be holding my breath.

On the other hand, I will hold my breath for hopes that Shrub's hand-picked successor holds a Secret Speech on his incompetent ass Khruschev-Style.

:D

Well, that's just the sort of blinkard, philistine pig ignorance that I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage. You sit there on your loathsome spotty behinds, squeezing blackheads, and not giving a tinker's cuss for the stuggling artist.... you excrement! You whining hypocritical toadies, with your color T.V. sets and your Tony Jacklin golf clubs, and your bleeding Masonic secret handshakes.... you wouldn't let me join the Masons would you, you blackballing bastards! Why, I wouldn't become a freemason now, if you went down on your lousy stinking, purulent knees and begged me!


Yours in enmity,
Myotisinia :D

Well, that's just the sort of blinkard, philistine pig ignorance that I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage. You sit there on your loathsome spotty behinds, squeezing blackheads, and not giving a tinker's cuss for the stuggling artist.... you excrement! You whining hypocritical toadies, with your color T.V. sets and your Tony Jacklin golf clubs, and your bleeding Masonic secret handshakes.... you wouldn't let me join the Masons would you, you blackballing bastards! Why, I wouldn't become a freemason now, if you went down on your lousy stinking, purulent knees and begged me!


Yours in enmity,
Myotisinia :D
You're Andrew Card, aren't you?

Well, that's just the sort of blinkard, philistine pig ignorance that I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage. You sit there on your loathsome spotty behinds, squeezing blackheads, and not giving a tinker's cuss for the stuggling artist.... you excrement! You whining hypocritical toadies, with your color T.V. sets and your Tony Jacklin golf clubs, and your bleeding Masonic secret handshakes.... you wouldn't let me join the Masons would you, you blackballing bastards! Why, I wouldn't become a freemason now, if you went down on your lousy stinking, purulent knees and begged me!


Yours in enmity,
Myotisinia :D
This is *ALMOST* ...
"Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam."
"Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your spam. I love it. I'm having spam spam spam spam spam spam spam beaked beans spam spam spam and spam!"

You're Andrew Card, aren't you?
...certainly *a* card, nyuk!

...certainly *a* card, nyuk!
We'll let this one slide but the next bad joke I expect you to own up to. Yellow smiley face head.

This linky sums up what I think and say outloud sometimes.

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=374

We'll let this one slide but the next bad joke I expect you to own up to. Yellow smiley face head.
Yes, sir. :(
*looks wistfully away*

Yes, sir. :(
*looks wistfully away*
Don't be ashamed. Just do better. Anyway, whatever became of Corneliu's response?

Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says

By DON VAN NATTA Jr.

Published: March 27, 2006

LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.





Forum: The Transition in Iraq
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.

Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush's extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government's plan.

Consistent Remarks

Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain's Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information. But one of them said, "In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process."

On Sunday, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president's public comments were consistent with his private remarks made to Mr. Blair. "While the use of force was a last option, we recognized that it might be necessary and were planning accordingly," Mr. Jones said.

"The public record at the time, including numerous statements by the President, makes clear that the administration was continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution into 2003," he said. "Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, but he chose continued defiance, even after being given one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. Our public and private comments are fully consistent."

The January 2003 memo is the latest in a series of secret memos produced by top aides to Mr. Blair that summarize private discussions between the president and the prime minister. Another group of British memos, including the so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&incamp=article_popular_5&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1143782098-iPDaalCTG2VoKOlucWx6iA

Don't be ashamed. Just do better. Anyway, whatever became of Corneliu's response?
I used it on another thread, me having integrity and all ... ;)

I guess it's a matter of how his professor answers. I'm shooting for a cameo. It'd liven the place up a smidge, IMHO.

I used it on another thread, me having integrity and all ... ;)

I guess it's a matter of how his professor answers. I'm shooting for a cameo. It'd liven the place up a smidge, IMHO.
Used the article?

Used the article?
No, i used his explanation for The Nazz to get a yuk (links only). He still hasn't responded to that particular issue - he may TG me but as of yet, nopers.

No, i used his explanation for The Nazz to get a yuk (links only). He still hasn't responded to that particular issue - he may TG me but as of yet, nopers.
I shall wait indefinitely.

Let the record show that the Constitution clearly establishes what makes a law, and stipulates that the President must ensure the faithful execution of the law. The Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) clearly meets the criteria for a law, as it was passed by Congress and entered law in the proper manner. Let the record show that the FISA bill also stipulates that the President must inform the Judiciary of their attempts to wiretap citizens of the US, and recieve authorization. The Bush administration did not recieve such authorization. Therefore, the Bush administration violated Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.

Game, set, match.

Why did he brake this rule?? To protect YOU, you stupid dumb***! I guess by this, you dont care if there is another 9-11. Because that is the point you are expressing. According to you you don't want the government to hunt down suspected terrorists. If NSA wants to listen to me tell my mom I love her on the phone, or tell my friend that he is late for a track meet, MORE POWER TO THEM. If they're realy that bored they can go right ahead and listen to whatever me or you have to say. If you are so paranoid about them listening to you on the phone then call your friend, or whoever the heck your talkin' to, and tell them you wish to speak to them.
So what if listened to some SUSPECTED TERRORIST on a phone. We should be p***ed off if he wouldn't do that. Not that he did do it. You people are PARANOID NUTJOBS. Get over yourselves people, dear god.:headbang: :rolleyes:
Oh no, he might of heard me tell my parents track practice was canceled today because it was raining. What ever shall I do!!:rolleyes:

Why did he brake this rule?? To protect YOU, you stupid dumb***! I guess by this, you dont care if there is another 9-11. Because that is the point you are expressing. According to you you don't want the government to hunt down suspected terrorists. If NSA wants to listen to me tell my mom I love her on the phone, or tell my friend that he is late for a track meet, MORE POWER TO THEM. If they're realy that bored they can go right ahead and listen to whatever me or you have to say. If you are so paranoid about them listening to you on the phone then call your friend, or whoever the heck your talkin' to, and tell them you wish to speak to them.
So what if listened to some SUSPECTED TERRORIST on a phone. We should be p***ed off if he wouldn't do that. Not that he did do it. You people are PARANOID NUTJOBS. Get over yourselves people, dear god.:headbang: :rolleyes:
Oh no, he might of heard me tell my parents track practice was canceled today because it was raining. What ever shall I do!!:rolleyes:
Wow. You really missed the point.

I shall wait indefinitely.
Ya know, i've *already* had to explain that to Myotisinia "Nature Boy" on another thread. Ah legacies are good fun.