What is more important to you? - Page 2

Static · 05-29-2008, 04:39 PM

-Upholding the United States Constitution

or

-Disregarding the United States Constitution and not worrying about impeachment proceedings because the election is so close and it would 'rip the country appart' (as if it isn't already...)

Seriously, this is what is has come to.

I sent a letter to senators Boxer and Feinstein, both D. CA, asking essentially why the hell the president and his entire fucking cabinet havn't been impeached yet, and both responses lingered on the lines of 'it's too close to election time, it would devide the country in a time when we all need to band together, I think they even mentioned it would weaken the democratic runner in the election against McCain! (which I think the opposite, I think it would show the democrats have balls who don't get pushed around)

In light Scott McClellen's book that was just published, I really think there's a strong case for impeachment, and with every passing day more evidence to impeach this administration is found. McClellen says the president lied about going to war; it was not just a case of "bad intelligence," but intentional deception. This is an impeachable crime.

So it seems to me this is the situation;

-The president (and his staff) have committed impeachable crimes (this is fact)
-The next presidential election is almost 6 months away and our representatives in congress (with the exception of Wexler and the judiciary committee) and the senate refuse to hold impeachment proceedings because it would (allegedly) devide the country and weaken the democratic frontrunner

So what does an American citizen do when the leaders of this country don't follow the rules?

...this is the type of stuff that breeds fanatical responses in the public sector. Does anyone else have a feeling of complete helplessness, like nobody will listen to you, and the ones that will won't do anything?

I R DANIEL (Sin · 06-03-2008, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

LOL show me where in the Constitution it says executive orders are ok.

It doesn't.

it's implied. any person that has reasonable knowledge of the constitution would know that. there's a reason why the US constitution is dynamic. nearly ever president. executive orders is dated all the way back to the founding fathers. bush isn't the first person use executive powers.

Static · 06-03-2008, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I R DANIEL (Sin

it's implied. any person that has reasonable knowledge of the constitution would know that. there's a reason why the US constitution is dynamic. nearly ever president. executive orders is dated all the way back to the founding fathers. bush isn't the first person use executive powers.

Executive powers are implied? How do you figure that? How does the US Constitution imply that the president has executive powers? I disagree with this statement, and if it is true, I sure as fuck would NEVER vote for a president to have 'executive powers'...

I R DANIEL (Sin · 06-03-2008, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Static

Executive powers are implied? How do you figure that? How does the US Constitution imply that the president has executive powers? I disagree with this statement, and if it is true, I sure as fuck would NEVER vote for a president to have 'executive powers'...

the title, executive power, is sort of an implication that the executive branch has executive power. read the part of the constitution that deals with the executive branch. ask a poli sci professor, they will all agree that executive powers are implied.

presidents from Jefferson to Lincoln, to Clinton have been using executive powers. if it were so horribly wrong, they would have made a revision to the constitution.

(FYI: congress has the power to overturn executive orders. so again, blame congress, not the president).

Static · 06-03-2008, 06:59 PM

Bottom line, if we can hold impeachment proceedings for Clinton for cheating on his wife (which is not illegal), then we should be able to for Bush for the shit he's done, and before he does something stupid to Iran. The things president Bush has done are illegal, it was illegal for his administration to lie about information leading up to the Iraq invasion, they lied about intelligence they recieved, lied to the American people and the rest of the world to get involved in a war with Iraq. That is illegal, and being the president of the United States, his ass can be and MUST BE impeached for that. If you disagree with this, what logic do you use to determine that fucking some random intern does more damage to the United States and everyone in it than waging 2 international wars (and all the implications that come along with it, thousands dead, trillions wasted)?

Explain that to me. (I'm not trying to sound like a dick, ^ probably does, but honestly, this isn't meant to be personal to anyone)

**Brother of Yeshua** · 06-03-2008, 08:04 PM

Did you read some of the executive orders in the link I posted?

How should a president have ANY right to make an order detracting from the rule of Constitutional law without expressed consent of the legislative body?

Congress is slowly being made obselete. More and more decisions are coming down from committes of UNELECTED OFFICIAL appointed by people in power, not the people they are supposedly working for.

Impeaching Bush won't solve much, but this issue is bigger

It's a continuous trend and pattern that keeps eroding our freedom.

The reason we're supposedly fighting for this country.

I R DANIEL (Sin · 06-03-2008, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Static

Bottom line, if we can hold impeachment proceedings for Clinton for cheating on his wife (which is not illegal), then we should be able to for Bush for the shit he's done, and before he does something stupid to Iran. The things president Bush has done are illegal, it was illegal for his administration to lie about information leading up to the Iraq invasion, they lied about intelligence they recieved, lied to the American people and the rest of the world to get involved in a war with Iraq. That is illegal, and being the president of the United States, his ass can be and MUST BE impeached for that. If you disagree with this, what logic do you use to determine that fucking some random intern does more damage to the United States and everyone in it than waging 2 international wars (and all the implications that come along with it, thousands dead, trillions wasted)?

Explain that to me. (I'm not trying to sound like a dick, ^ probably does, but honestly, this isn't meant to be personal to anyone)

adultery is illegal in the many states across the US. and like i said, Clinton was impeached because of the republican majority in congress (and on the legal side, he was impeached for obstruction of justice and lying under-oath, not for adultery).

none of what Bush has done is illegal. it is not illegal to lie. plain and simple. congress should have been smart enough to realize that. and every other country that was involved in the war all have their own intelligence agencies. i'm sure they didn't agree to go to war because of what the US says. that wouldn't make sense. they relied on the intelligence that they received.

the logic that i have on impeaching someone for a blow job, and over impeaching someone for lying, is completely sound. like i said, i don't like bush. but he hasn't broke the law. clinton, did. end of discussion. it's that simple. even though it was very very stupid and childish to impeach him, rules are the rules. shit, you can impeach a president for jay walking. is it stupid? yeah. but it's the law, and it's held by the constitution. until i see Bush crossing the street outside of the cross walk, he can not be impeached.

i follow the constitution. not my feelings, not a donkey or an elephant, not war, not anything.

Quote:

Did you read some of the executive orders in the link I posted?

How should a president have ANY right to make an order detracting from the rule of Constitutional law without expressed consent of the legislative body?

Congress is slowly being made obselete. More and more decisions are coming down from committes of UNELECTED OFFICIAL appointed by people in power, not the people they are supposedly working for.

Impeaching Bush won't solve much, but this issue is bigger

It's a continuous trend and pattern that keeps eroding our freedom.

The reason we're supposedly fighting for this country.

no, i didnt read it, because i know that the president is given executive powers. and yes, some executive orders are completely wrong. but executive powers are given for a reason. with out executive power, Jefferson would have never made the Louisiana purchase, and the U.S. might still only be 13 states. Lincoln would have never made the emancipation proclamation, etc...

Politics in America is a continuous tug-of-war between the three branches. and it is noted throughout history, all three branches fighting with each other for power. as of right now, it's leaning towards the executive branch. in a few years the weight will go towards the legislative or judiciary.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 06-03-2008, 10:39 PM

I respect your honesty, but you don't read a link I give you and you expect me to respect your arguments against something you haven't even bothered to read, (check out wikipedia too, for more basic information on executive orders) I don't know what to say.

If you are happier saying "redefining torture as legal through EO's is ok" and "making provisions for government to take over all private sectors, including individual property, assets, and modes of transportation is ok through EO's" or "Spying on civilians without warrants due to EO's is A-OK withe me!" then great, you are going to get more of the same from whoever is propped up into power next election.

IMO this is grievous breach of contract to the Constitution Bush swore to uphold and protect is impeachable alone, not to mention a hoard of other stuff I could come up with (not to mention that the things he's supposedly defending, he called a "goddamn piece of paper." Treason much Bush?).

I'm not saying EO's are bad, but that they are abused, and since there is no expressed blanket consent for them in the Constitution, Congress MUST have the right to review these EO's and have the power to veto presidential law making (which is what this is essentially) just as the president can veto their legislative submissions.

When has the tug of war gone any direction except more centralized to the federal level, then to the federal executive branch? There may be slight balances of power, but always followed by a tremendous collapse inward, always more centralized.

There's not tug of war between power of the people here, it's political elites bickering over who gets the biggest slice of the pie. Instead of fighting back, while they live in opulent excess, we all fight over the scraps.

A nation divided cannot stand, and the once free nation known as the United States of America is on the edge of a knife.

How much longer until we figure out who the real enemies of freedom are within this country?

I R DANIEL (Sin · 06-04-2008, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

I respect your honesty, but you don't read a link I give you and you expect me to respect your arguments against something you haven't even bothered to read, (check out wikipedia too, for more basic information on executive orders) I don't know what to say.

If you are happier saying "redefining torture as legal through EO's is ok" and "making provisions for government to take over all private sectors, including individual property, assets, and modes of transportation is ok through EO's" or "Spying on civilians without warrants due to EO's is A-OK withe me!" then great, you are going to get more of the same from whoever is propped up into power next election.

IMO this is grievous breach of contract to the Constitution Bush swore to uphold and protect is impeachable alone, not to mention a hoard of other stuff I could come up with (not to mention that the things he's supposedly defending, he called a "goddamn piece of paper." Treason much Bush?).

I'm not saying EO's are bad, but that they are abused, and since there is no expressed blanket consent for them in the Constitution, Congress MUST have the right to review these EO's and have the power to veto presidential law making (which is what this is essentially) just as the president can veto their legislative submissions.

When has the tug of war gone any direction except more centralized to the federal level, then to the federal executive branch? There may be slight balances of power, but always followed by a tremendous collapse inward, always more centralized.

There's not tug of war between power of the people here, it's political elites bickering over who gets the biggest slice of the pie. Instead of fighting back, while they live in opulent excess, we all fight over the scraps.

A nation divided cannot stand, and the once free nation known as the United States of America is on the edge of a knife.

How much longer until we figure out who the real enemies of freedom are within this country?

like i said, i dont need to read the link because i know that executive orders are allowed by the constitution. i know that some executive orders are bogus. i dont need anyone telling me this. and i didnt bother reading the link in the first place because the initial argument was whether or not the constitution grants the use of executive order by the president (which it does).

throughout the entire late 1700's and 1800's and most of the 1900's the balance of power was more towards the legislative and judicial branch. only spurts of the power has shifted towards the executive side. examples of htis are during presidential era of Jefferson (ironically he was a democratic-republican), Jackson, Lincoln, FDR. there might be more that i have left out. any political scientist would agree with me on this. as history goes on, people will look back and add Bush to the list. and what you may, or may not realize, is that during war, civil liberties fly out the window. whether you like it or not. it's just a fact.

like i stated in an earlier post, congress does have the power to veto executive orders. so again, blame congress, not Bush.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 06-04-2008, 08:59 PM

What do you do when Executive Orders already violate existing US law? Congress only has the power to veto through legislation.

There's an EO (it's on wikipedia's page I don't remember the number) that allows presidential papers to be hidden from EVERYONE, which is already in violation.

When someone breaks existing law, it is a matter for the judicial branch, which is why impeachment is feasible. Bush has made laws amending and abridging the "goddamn piece of paper" us faithful Americans call The Constitution.

I really can't fathom how you do not view what he has done as illegal.

I'm not being rude, just telling you I really don't understand.

I R DANIEL (Sin · 06-04-2008, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

What do you do when Executive Orders already violate existing US law? Congress only has the power to veto through legislation.

There's an EO (it's on wikipedia's page I don't remember the number) that allows presidential papers to be hidden from EVERYONE, which is already in violation.

When someone breaks existing law, it is a matter for the judicial branch, which is why impeachment is feasible. Bush has made laws amending and abridging the "goddamn piece of paper" us faithful Americans call The Constitution.

I really can't fathom how you do not view what he has done as illegal.

I'm not being rude, just telling you I really don't understand.

if it take legislation to veto an executive order, than that's what it takes. i have complete faith in our system. if the executive order is heinous enough, congress will meet, and resolve the issue shortly to dissipate, or minimize damage and wrong-doing.

courts and congress can subpoena the president for documents, like they did with nixon during the watergate scandal.