Mortkat wrote:
Quote:Don't you know by now, Debra L A W, that the only thing that really counts is who is President, who controls the House and Senate and who is nominating people for the USSC?
Not as long as the US Constitution exists, M., but writing as you do above reveals your desire to live under a different system. Where do you intend to go after the mid-term elections?
Joe(See the words of Simon's
Loves me like a Rock)Nation
Quote:The thing that is REALLY important is that Bush is a LIAR and wannabe dictator who is disrespecting the rule of law and making fools out of every elected official sitting in Congress--and everybody knows it.
If "everybody" knows it,and the elected officials in congress keep falling for it,what does that make them?
Of course,let me remind you that "everybody" knew the earth was flat,"everybody" knew that the sun orbited the earth,"everybody" knew that flight was impossible,"everybody" knew that man would never go to the moon.
My point is that often,what "everybody" knows,is wrong.
dumbasses. And they know it too. Have you seen the looks on their faces lately? The whole fabric of their 'trust us, we know what's best for you' scam is coming apart at the seams.
They've already killed some of your children and stolen part of your money for their best backers, but they still need a little more of each, you going to give?
Joe Nation wrote:dumbasses. And they know it too. Have you seen the looks on their faces lately? The whole fabric of their 'trust us, we know what's best for you' scam is coming apart at the seams.
They've already killed some of your children and stolen part of your money for their best backers, but they still need a little more of each, you going to give?
The perpetually ignorant will always be happy to hand over both, money and children !!
Anon
Rasmussen Poll- Americans do not think that President Bush committed a crime when he ordered wiretapping to prevent other attacks on the USA. Source- Rasmussen Reports.
Don't you know by now, Debra L A W, that for every poll on one side there is one on the other?
Don't you know by now, Debra L A W, that the only thing that really counts is who is President, who controls the House and Senate and who is nominating people for the USSC?
Joe Nation thinks that the Constitution is vital and important. And indeed, it is. It is the most important thing. but anyone who does not know, AS THE UNDERTAKER JOHN KERRY SAID IN PLEADING FOR VOTES THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT( 2004) WOULD APPOINT TWO OR PERHAPS THREE USSC PERSONS, that the President's appointments shape the INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION for better or for worse.
Do you need proof, Joe Nation?
Bill Clinton appointed the cheif lawyer for the ACLU, the malignant dwarf, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. To many, she has been a disaster and A DESTROYER OF THE CONSTITUTION. President Bush has appointed Judge Stevens and soon Judge Alito and perhaps, if another USSC vacancy opens up before 2008, an additional Justice.
You really reveal your ignorance, Joe Nation. It's all about who controls the levers of power. At this time, the Republicans control the Presidency, the House and the Senate and are putting more judges on the USSC who will not legislate from the bench but will interpret the Constitution as it was meant to be interpreted.
Public polls do not direct what is legal in this country; a clue for you.
Public Polls do not direct what is legal in the country. The courts do, But anyone who thinks that the politicians don't watch the polls; stick their fingers in the air to see which way the wind is blowing is just ignorant.
In his book-"Shadow". Bob Woodward wrote". 336
quote
"At one point, Clinton said that as a practical matter the country didn't have elections anymore. What they had were photographs of public opinion polls, a kind of over the counter market quotation of the polls in an ongoing partisan war that would last all four years. THE NUMBERS IN THOSE POLLS WERE THE MOST IMPORTANT NUMBERS IN THE WORLD FOR CLINTON"
END OF QUOTE
Mortkat wrote:It's all about who controls the levers of power. At this time, the Republicans control the Presidency, the House and the Senate and are putting more judges on the USSC who will not legislate from the bench but will interpret the Constitution as it was meant to be interpreted.
While you're pronouncing everyone else to be ignorant, perhaps you should measure your own naivity. The Republicans control NOTHING unless they take profound steps to reign in the monster who sits in the White House. Bush has claimed UNITARY control of the entire government. He spits on members of his own political party. Senator McCain (R-Ariz.) has Bush's spittal all over his face right now. Do you really think the membership of Congress--whether they be democrats or republicans--will allow Bush to smash the rule of law in their faces like dog poop and relegate them to the status of impotent fools?
Debra, So far, most members of congress resemble the status of "impotent fools." Many are being investigated for taking money from Abramoff and how that may have influenced legislation. If there is not a big change in Washington during the next two or three elections, I'm afraid we have a bunch of dupes running our country for many generations.
Don't you know by now, Debra L A W, that for every poll on one side there is one on the other?
Don't you know by now, Debra L A W, that the only thing that really counts is who is President, who controls the House and Senate and who is nominating people for the USSC?
Joe Nation thinks that the Constitution is vital and important. And indeed, it is. It is the most important thing. but anyone who does not know, AS THE UNDERTAKER JOHN KERRY SAID IN PLEADING FOR VOTES THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT( 2004) WOULD APPOINT TWO OR PERHAPS THREE USSC PERSONS, that the President's appointments shape the INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION for better or for worse.
Do you need proof, Joe Nation?
Bill Clinton appointed the cheif lawyer for the ACLU, the malignant dwarf, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. To many, she has been a disaster and A DESTROYER OF THE CONSTITUTION. President Bush has appointed Judge Stevens and soon Judge Alito and perhaps, if another USSC vacancy opens up before 2008, an additional Justice.
You really reveal your ignorance, Joe Nation. It's all about who controls the levers of power. At this time, the Republicans control the Presidency, the House and the Senate and are putting more judges on the USSC who will not legislate from the bench but will interpret the Constitution as it was meant to be interpreted.
Bush's Political Capital Spent, Voices in Both Parties Suggest
Poll Numbers Sag as Setbacks Mount at Home and Abroad
Washington Post
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Quote:Two days after winning reelection last fall, President Bush declared that he had earned plenty of "political capital, and now I intend to spend it." Six months later, according to Republicans and Democrats alike, his bank account has been significantly drained.
In the past week alone, the Republican-led House defied his veto threat and passed legislation promoting stem cell research; Senate Democrats blocked confirmation, at least temporarily, of his choice for U.N. ambassador; and a rump group of GOP senators abandoned the president in his battle to win floor votes for all of his judicial nominees. . . .
Seven months ago, Bush's political account was significantly drained. Today, the wannabe dictator is totally bankrupt--politically and ethically.
The only "levers of power" are the justice department investigation that's getting ready to pull on the guillotine that will decapitate the GOP from power. During all this time, the congress had lower confidence polls than the president. They're just biding their time to have their heads chopped off.
To watch them running in fear is too funny to contemplate.
Senator McCain (R-Ariz.) is attempting to wipe the President Bush's spit off his face:
McCain to Bush: 'Don't try it, pal'
Quote:. . . The good news is that McCain made it clear Wednesday that if President Bush tries to circumvent congressional prohibitions on the inhumane treatment of prisoners, McCain — one of the few American politicians with a functioning backbone — doesn't intend to let him get away with it.
Last year, McCain introduced an amendment to the defense appropriations bill prohibiting U.S. personnel from subjecting prisoners anywhere in the world to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, and the Senate approved it, 90 to 9. Bush, who apparently thinks we can't win the war on terror without becoming as inhumane as our enemies, initially threatened to veto any legislation containing McCain's language. But the overwhelming support in Congress for the amendment made it effectively veto-proof, and after a protracted standoff, the president finally agreed to sign the bill in late December.
The media announced this as a victory for McCain, his congressional supporters and the large majority of Americans who tell pollsters that torturing terror suspects is not acceptable. But the president still had a bit of mischief up his sleeve. When he signed the legislation, Bush issued a signing statement saying he planned to construe the McCain amendment's absolute prohibition on cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment "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, which will assist in achieving the shared objective … of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."
This may seem like so much legalistic gobbledygook, but it's more sinister than that. It refers to the administration's astonishing claim that whenever the president asserts that he's acting in the interests of national security, he's constitutionally permitted to violate any federal laws he finds inconvenient. Translated, Bush's statement says, "I'll sign a law prohibiting cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, but because I'm president, I can ignore it." As blogger and Georgetown University law professor Marty Lederman notes, Bush's signing statement was "the commander-in-chief version of 'I had my fingers crossed.' "
The legal effect of such presidential signing statements is controversial, but here, where the whole purpose of the statute is to create a loophole-free ban on a practice that the overwhelming majority in Congress finds abhorrent, it's hard to see a court siding with the president.
In the short term, though, only Congress can exercise a meaningful check on presidential power run amok. That's why it was good news when McCain took a break from the glaciers to coordinate with Sen. John Warner on a statement reacting to Bush's "I had my fingers crossed" maneuver: "We believe the president understands Congress' intent in passing by very large majorities legislation governing the treatment of detainees…. The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation. Our committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the administration's implementation of the new law."
It's not ringing oratory. But if we again translate the dry legalism, it's a masterpiece of understated menace: "Don't try it, pal. We're watching you."
And McCain and Warner were promptly joined by another key Republican, Lindsey Graham, who added: "I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any … law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified. If we go down that road, it will cause great problems."
It's odd how the president, whose popularity remains abysmally low, seems determined to alienate the last remaining moderate Republicans. Spitting in the face of crucial Republican Senate leaders seems weirdly selfdestructive.
After all, Congress may not be able to prevent the president from ignoring the McCain amendment, but using the power of the purse and other tools, it can sure make Bush's life miserable for the next three years.
Debra, I see nothing but "kid gloves" from this congress to reign in Bush's violation of its laws. They are disgusting to watch as Bush steps all over this country's laws, international laws, and our Constitution.
By holding back, they allow this president to step over too many lines of checks and balances intended by the Constitution - not only from this president, but from future presidents. The checks and balances become useless.
cicerone imposter wrote:Debra, I see nothing but "kid gloves" from this congress to reign in Bush's violation of its laws. They are disgusting to watch as Bush steps all over this country's laws, international laws, and our Constitution.
By holding back, they allow this president to step over too many lines of checks and balances intended by the Constitution - not only from this president, but from future presidents. The checks and balances become useless.
============================================
Bush is President, not King ---- he can't "reign" over a damn thing.
Ms. Law meanwhile has YET to produce an explanation on HOW these unprecedented appalling repellent et al et al constitutional violations by President (no, not King, got that?????) Bush remain in force with no impeachment challenge!!!!!
Quote, "Bush is President, not King ---- "
That's the reason many of us are questioning why this congress hasn't done anything that would question the overstepping of established laws (such as FISA and torture of prisoners) by Bush.
Many of us are questioning?????
So how is it that NONE of us in Congress or outside have filed articles of impeachment YET is my long-standing UNANSWERED question!!!!
Louise_R_Heller wrote:Many of us are questioning?????
So how is it that NONE of us in Congress or outside have filed articles of impeachment YET is my long-standing UNANSWERED question!!!!
How long did it take to investigate Nixon before a bill of impeachment was brought? You erroneously seem to think something like this happens overnight or not at all. Be patient.
