Originally Posted By thethe1 >>I think the fact is that most Americans are moderate, and that in the last election cycle they voted for the known rather than the unknown.<< nope most Americans are right of center and that's why we own the Senate the House, and the Presidency, and soon the Supreme court. If America was down the middle the Dems would have something but they don't they control nothing!
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "they don't they control nothing!" Yeah! Them guys is just a bunch of winey libberals!
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Tom; I just joined here after a horrifying experience with another "disney" sight. The point is Tom, after reading this last post and several others by you, I'm beginning to feel that I like how you think and this may be a very good place to hang out!
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Welcome aboard - LP is a great place, but the world events section and the DCA section can get a little tense at times.
Originally Posted By oc_dean DCA section?? NAH! Really?!! You don't say! >>and that's why we own the Senate the House, and the Presidency, and soon the Supreme court.<< You scare me.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>and that's why we own the Senate the House, and the Presidency, and soon the Supreme court.<< You scare me.<< You and every other Constitution-loving, Patriotic American.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo >>and that's why we own the Senate the House, and the Presidency, and soon the Supreme court.<< <<You scare me.>> All it's missing is the: "Muhahahaha."
Originally Posted By TomSawyer They don't own the branches of government - they're just leasing them for the time being.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "They don't own the branches of government - they're just leasing them for the time being." And the leases start running out later on this year, thank goodness.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510887" target="_blank">http://www.thecrimson.com/arti cle.aspx?ref=510887</a> >>During his days as a student at Harvard, the youngest brother in the Kennedy clan garnered just one mention in The Crimson—a 1956 article about an inter-house debating event, according to an archive search. The question at the debate was: “Resolved: That the Federal Government should compel the state of Alabama to grant equal educational opportunities to Negroes.†Kennedy’s Winthrop team took the negative side and won. << That's right, Kennedy argued for segregation! Now of course a college debate is an intellectual exercise; people don't always agree with the positions they advocate..... But if this were a Republican judicial nominee, is there any doubt that Kennedy would consider it disqualifying?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder What's your point here, Darkbeer? Fixed your google feature? Kennedy's a drip, no pun intended. We all know it. Next. Alito is going to get confirmed. Next.
Originally Posted By woody "Alito is going to get confirmed. Next." It depends if there will be another delay. You're rather antsy about wanting to change the subject. Why? It isn't over till its over.
Originally Posted By bboisvert Dems don't have subpeona power. They cannot run the hearings. There's no way for them to put up a fight against this other than a fillabuster. Why is a fillabuster so troubling? It's one of the purest form of checks and balances.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer <But if this were a Republican judicial nominee, is there any doubt that Kennedy would consider it disqualifying?> Of course there's a doubt. This is a ridiculous assertion. All a nominee would have to say is "I was assigned to that side" and everyone would understand that. Alito, on the other hand, bragged about membership in this group whose main purpose was to keep Princeton as white and male as possible on his job application to the Reagan administration, and now "forgets" all about even belonging. I don't think it's enough to disqualify him, but it does make me roll my eyes and say "oh, COME ON" in the same way Clinton's "I didn't inhale" made me roll my eyes and say "oh, COME ON." By the way, conservative Andrew Sullivan had an interesting column in this week's Time mag that concerns Alito: <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/magaz ine/article/0</a>,9171,1149361-1,00.html It's about the little-known presidential "signing statment" and how Bush has used it far more than any previous president, and what that could mean. Interesting stuff. " Last December, for example, after a year of debate, the President signed the McCain amendment into law. In the wake of Abu Ghraib, the amendment banned all "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of U.S. military detainees. For months, the President threatened a veto. Then the Senate passed it 90 to 9. The House chimed in with a veto-proof majority. So Bush backed down, embraced McCain and signed it. The debate was over, right? That's how our democracy works, right? Not according to this President. Although the meaning of the law was crystal clear and the Constitution says Congress has the exclusive power to "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water," Bush demurred. He issued a signing statement that read, "The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power." Translation: If the President believes torture is warranted to protect the country, he'll violate the law and authorize torture. If the courts try to stop him, he'll ignore them too. This wasn't quibbling or spinning. Like the old English kings who insisted that Parliament could not tell them what to do, Bush all but declared himself above a law he signed. One professor who specializes in this constitutional area, Phillip J. Cooper of Portland State University in Oregon, has described the power grabs as "breathtaking." And who came up with this innovative use of presidential signing statements? Drumroll, please. Samuel Alito, Supreme Court nominee, way back in 1986. In a Feb. 5 memo, he wrote, "Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress." That is, of course, a very strange idea--which is why, until then, signing statements had been sporadic and rare. Courts have always looked solely to congressional debates in interpreting laws Congress has passed. In laws with veto-proof margins, the President's view is utterly irrelevant. Alito seemed to concede that at the time, recognizing the "novelty of the procedure and the potential increase of presidential power." More at the link.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer This president has never understood that it is his job to execute the laws that Congress passes. The founding fathers were very clear about separating the ability to make the law from the ability to execute and enforce the law.
Originally Posted By woody "This president has never understood that it is his job to execute the laws that Congress passes." There was discussion about unitary power in the Alito nomination. You should read it. The Executive Branch has a separate power that is exclusive and unique from the Legislature. The President is claiming that power. Even if Congress passes a law and the President accepts it, future administrations may not necessarily accept it. It happens all the time. There is an actual intent of the separation of powers. The key word is "separate."
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I think I'll stick on the side of the rule of law rather than the whims of whoever is in the White House, woody.
Originally Posted By cmpaley So, can the President choose to ignore the Constitution and the LAWS that limit his time in office? Can he then ignore the part about titles of nobility and insist on being addressed as His Imperial Majesty and declaring himself Emperor and Dictator for Life (like Caesar)? Just checkin;
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The President is claiming powers he almost certainly doesn't have under the constitution. But by the time the courts get around to saying that definitively, he'll probably be out of office. A cynical strategy, but possibly an effective one.
