Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
onthefence said:You are correct, but the difference is, I would file suit in a court of law and send the case to the USSC. You know why I would do this? Because it is the legal and proper thing to do. Bitching and moaning to a liberal press is not the proper thing to do and doesn't address anything. If you feel the President is breaking the law, there are proper channels to follow. My point was that those that feel this way, are simply bitching about it and not doing anything. In short, either shit or get off the pot.
onthefence said:Its not Bush's Supreme Court. It is the United States Supreme Court. If anything it is Chief Justice Robert's Court.
Just for shits and giggles, here you go. One of those people who have had their phone calls eavesdropped can sue for having their privacy trampled on.
jillian said:No offense intended, but you're on the wrong track. You and I have no independent right to bring such a case. Congress has the right to investigate it, but they aren't about to do that so long as Bush owns Congress. (and the court as well). See how easy it is for someone to become a despot?
As for "liberal media"....why do you think anyone/thing who criticizes this guy is "liberal media". Maybe they're just correct???
jillian said:No offense intended, but you're on the wrong track. You and I have no independent right to bring such a case. Congress has the right to investigate it, but they aren't about to do that so long as Bush owns Congress. (and the court as well). See how easy it is for someone to become a despot?
As for "liberal media"....why do you think anyone/thing who criticizes this guy is "liberal media". Maybe they're just correct???
onthefence said:You just referred to the President of the United States as a despot. Are you saying that checks and balances aren't good enough? The President doesn't own anything. The good people of the US simply had the great sense to see through the DNC's dumbass agenda. The GOP is more mainstream, so therefore they were elected.
Please don't refer to our government as despotic. This is a slap in the face for myself and every veteran who has ever picked up a rifle.
jillian said:Ummmmmm....."mainstream" had nothing to do with it or Bush's approval ratings wouldn't be where they are and the Republican party wouldn't be in the trouble it's in for the midterms.
Actually, I said it was easy for someone to BECOME a despot. I also said nothing different than Sandra Day O'Connor did recently when she said "it takes a long time to become a dictatorship but better to stop the slide at the beginning than the end". And I have nothing but respect for your service. It's this president I don't respect. Not the same thing.
Diuretic said:There's some sick fascination in watching a representative democracy* crumble. It's very sad. What's even worse is that some people welcome it just as long as it's not someone else (a Democratic Party President for example) doing it. I suspect if it was President Hillary Clinton that the supporters here would not be so sanguine.
*don't go after me with the "republic" thing. I know the US is a Republic, you have a President and not a Monarch (although like the pigs and humans in "Animal Farm" one is looking increasingly like the other) so it's a Republic in form and a representative democracy in process.
Still a sad sight, whatever you call it.
onthefence said:You are quoting Sandra Day O'Connor, yet you shrugged off my suggestion of taking your issues up with the USSC. You can't have it both ways. O'Connor knows that the USSC has the Consititutional authority to stop whatever it is you have said that Bush has done wrong.
And don't give me the whole, "it's Bush's court" bullshit agian. It could have just as easily have been "Kerry's court." When you win, you get to pick the court. Get over it.
onthefence said:You are quoting Sandra Day O'Connor, yet you shrugged off my suggestion of taking your issues up with the USSC. You can't have it both ways. O'Connor knows that the USSC has the Consititutional authority to stop whatever it is you have said that Bush has done wrong.
And don't give me the whole, "it's Bush's court" bullshit agian. It could have just as easily have been "Kerry's court." When you win, you get to pick the court. Get over it.
GunnyL said:If it was Dem prez, it'd be okay. But we already know no Dem President has enough balls to do anything Bush does. Clinton's idea of countering terrorism was calling Monica in for an impromtu "meeting."
jillian said:Tell ya what...if I find out my phones were tapped and they didn't bother going to a FISA Court, I'll be the first to sue. Now if you would just tell George to let me know if I've been taped............
jillian said:Funny....last I checked, the blind sheikh had been convicted and was rotting in prison.
Bush read to school children while we were being attacked and then attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. *sigh*
jillian said:Funny....last I checked, the blind sheikh had been convicted and was rotting in prison.
Bush read to school children while we were being attacked and then attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. *sigh*
GunnyL said:Typical liberal bullshit. Bush was reading to schoolchildren BEFORE the attacks began on 9/11. As I've often asked you lefties since then with no real, intelligent response .... just WHAT would you have him do? The President of the United States panic in front of a bunch of gradeschoolers? THAT would've sure instilled confidence.
He finished reading the story -- a couple of minutes -- and left. Since he's a Republican, nothign short of immediately stripping down to his blue-n-red tights and flying faster than a speeding bullet to deflect the second plane with his chest would be good enough for you lefties.
Let's compare: Terrorists attack a US warship and the then-President's response DAYS later was to blow up a tent and some camels. Real swift.
The US invaded Afghanistan in response to the Taliban refusing to surrender bin Laden as a result of 9/11.
Five years and y'all STILL have to try to spin the same old bullshit.
Avatar4321 said:The only problem is President Bush isn't trying to expand His presidential powers. He is only trying to restore the Presidential Constitutional powers to what they were before Congress decided they had power to limit those powers.
The Constitution grants Congress specified checks to the President's power. Outside those checks, it is highly questionable that Congress is expressly given there is a strong argument that Congress cannot encroach on the Presidents power. The point of the Constitution was to create three Separate and equal braches of government with the ability to check each other is certain express ways. Granting the other branches of government more power to check the executive branch grants them more authority than the Constitution allows and threatens the Independence of the Executive branch.
The President is bound to uphold the Constitution. Should the other branches of government try to reach for more power than they are authorized and unconstitutionally restrict the powers of the executive branch, the President does not only have the right, he has the duty refuse the applicability of those laws in order to preserve the rights inherent in the executive branch.
Bully,---WIN AN ELECTION and you TOO can challenge hundreds of laws !!Bullypulpit said:What DUbbyuh has done with his use of signing statements goes far beyond what has been done in previous presidencies, including Ronald Reagan's. What he has done, in essence, is to undermine the very notion of "the rule of law" in this nation. This is because we cannot determine those laws Dubbyuh has deemed valid and those he has determined are unconstitutional.
With his use of signing statments, Dubbyuh has attempted to usurp the constitutional authority of Congress to make laws. He does this by signing bills into law, and then ignoring them rather than vetoing those laws he disagrees with. He similarly usurps the power of the Judicial branch with his use of signing statements by appending his interpretations of these bills to the signing statements.
In his aggressive use of signing statements, Dubbyuh undermines the Judicail and Legislative branches of government. In doing so he undermines the essential checks and balances which protect the democratic process of this nation. This process serves to concentrate power in the White House and with the Congress controlled by the Republican party, there is little likelyhood of any real protest, let alone oversight, from that quarter.
For a more detailed analysis, go HERE:
<center><h2><a href=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/?page=1>Bush challenges hundreds of laws</a></h2></center>
dilloduck said:Bully,---WIN AN ELECTION and you TOO can challenge hundreds of laws !!
Bullypulpit said:I don't want <b>ANY</b> president to have that kind of power. After all, would YOU trust a liberal president not to abuse such power? I know I wouldn't.
Bullypulpit said:I don't want <b>ANY</b> president to have that kind of power. After all, would YOU trust a liberal president not to abuse such power? I know I wouldn't.
