LeakGate Resolution:Bush's genius.

[rtwngAvngr]

That's certainly a characterization that the extremists like to make. Maybe they've even convinced some people of that. One shouldn't confuse a sense of fairness and a sense that we're all in this together to some extent as a desire for socialism.

Most of my favorite liberals are staunch capitalists. They just want to see the weakest and poorest get a hand. Not a terrible thing now, is it? I mean, don't you think civilizations are judged by how they treat their oldest, youngest, sickest and poorest?

Oh there's no confusion.

A hand is one thing, when it's given freely by private charity. Government instituted coercive income redistribution has as much to do with charity as a jackboot in the face.

 

[jillian]

Oh there's no confusion.

A hand is one thing, when it's given freely by private charity. Government instituted coercive income redistribution has as much to do with charity as a jackboot in the face.

Obviously, I disagree (shocking that we'd disagree, eh? heh!).

I think the good of society is the obligation of government and that government is supposed to do more than just provide for the common defense.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Obviously, I disagree (shocking that we'd disagree, eh? heh!).

I think the good of society is the obligation of government and that government is supposed to do more than just provide for the common defense.

Maybe what's good for society is to not have government manipulating property relations to "make things fair". The Dialectical Materialism liberals espouse is a flawed model which denies man his humanity, his free will, and his morality.

 

[musicman]

I think the good of society is the obligation of government and that government is supposed to do more than just provide for the common defense.

I was going to point out that our wise founding fathers decided central government could do society the greatest good by staying out of its affairs, but then RWA just went and said it better:

Maybe what's good for society is to not have government manipulating property relations to "make things fair". The Dialectical Materialism liberals espouse is a flawed model which denies man his humanity, his free will, and his morality.

 

[CSM]

That's certainly a characterization that the extremists like to make. Maybe they've even convinced some people of that. One shouldn't confuse a sense of fairness and a sense that we're all in this together to some extent as a desire for socialism.

Most of my favorite liberals are staunch capitalists. They just want to see the weakest and poorest get a hand. Not a terrible thing now, is it? I mean, don't you think civilizations are judged by how they treat their oldest, youngest, sickest and poorest?

I was going to go into a long tirade about "sense of fairness" but what's the use. It is obvious that some folks think fairness means taking my hard earned money and giving it to someone else.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Libs discredit themselves when they try to hide their socialism. That IS what they want. Their main goal is deception and distraction. That's why they suck at debating.

 

[jillian]

Libs discredit themselves when they try to hide their socialism. That IS what they want. Their main goal is deception and distraction. That's why they suck at debating.

Now, now, now.... who is it who's resorting to attacking the "other side". Dunno about you, but I've had some pretty good debates with both "libs" and "conservatives". :

 

[dilloduck]

Now, now, now.... who is it who's resorting to attacking the "other side". Dunno about you, but I've had some pretty good debates with both "libs" and "conservatives". :

At times the debates even get above party lines---awesome huh? I have great faith in you ! :cof:

 

[jillian]

At times the debates even get above party lines---awesome huh? I have great faith in you ! :cof:

I love those kinds of discussions.

and thanks *blushing*

 

[CrimsonWhite]

So you believe the president has the right to insert his own constitutional analysis in place of that of the Supreme Court? Interesting.

President Andrew Jackson thought so. There is precident here.

 

[jillian]

President Andrew Jackson thought so. There is precident here.

While that shows there was discussion on the issue, a president's opinioin on the subject has no weight or precedential value.

 

[Redhots]

Hello, I'm back.

Looks like I have some catching up to do.

I interpret it differently because I am not particularly interested in hating the current administration; I interpret it differently because I do not view everything Republican as "bad" or "evil". I interpret it differently because I dont take things out of context and skew them, spin them, or twist them to make political points.

Damn, only a handful of posts on this forum and you already have me pegged!



None of those things apply to me.

Though I am no fan of this administration... but I do have 5 1/2 years of reasons to base that off of... and i'm not interested in hating them, just replacing them. Wont you cut me some slack?

Anyway if I read you right what it boils down to is that you don't think Bush would ignore this law, yes?

I do wonder though if all things being the same except that Clinton was president (Bill or Hill, take your pick) , or better yet Al Sharpton , if you could honestly say you would interpret it the same.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

While that shows there was discussion on the issue, a president's opinioin on the subject has no weight or precedential value.

Yet he defied the USSC without impeachment. He acted on his opinion and went without punishment. That is not a precident?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

People don't preemptively clear their every action with all relevant authorities first. DO you jillian? Or do you start the day thinking "I'm gonna stay within the parameters of what I think is legal today, and If I mess up, I'll deal with it then."?

 

[jillian]

Yet he defied the USSC without impeachment. He acted on his opinion and went without punishment. That is not a precident?

Well, not really...

Jackson is often quoted as having said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" Jackson probably never said this; the popular story that Jackson defied the Supreme Court in carrying out Indian Removal is untrue. In fact, Jackson had no clear legal right to intervene on behalf of the Cherokees in Georgia.

Instead, Jackson used the Georgia crisis to pressure Cherokee leaders to sign a removal treaty. A faction of Cherokees led by Jackson's old ally Major Ridge negotiated the Treaty of New Echota with Jackson's administration, a document of dubious legality which was rejected by most Cherokees. However, the terms of the treaty were strictly enforced by Jackson's successor, Martin Van Buren, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of Cherokees along the "Trail of Tears".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Well, not really...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson

I'm gonna have to go with the BAMA history department this. The position at BAMA is that President Jackson defied the Supreme Court. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, The USSC ruled the Indian Removal Act unconstitutional, yet President Jackson enforced the act anyway. He may not have said ""John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!", but he did act this statement out.

 

[jillian]

I'm gonna have to go with the BAMA history department this. The position at BAMA is that President Jackson defied the Supreme Court. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, The USSC ruled the Indian Removal Act unconstitutional, yet President Jackson enforced the act anyway. He may not have said ""John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!", but he did act this statement out.

Jackson was not directed to DO anything by the Court. The narrow holding of the Court in WORCESTER v. STATE OF GA

It is the opinion of this court that the judgment of the superior court for the county of Gwinnett, in the state of Georgia, condemning Samuel A. Worcester to hard labour, in the penitentiary of the state of Georgia, for four years, was pronounced by that court under colour of a law which is void, as being repugnant to the constitution, treaties, and laws of the [31 U.S. 515, 563] United States, and ought, therefore, to be reversed and annulled.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=31&page=515

So, it was only Sam Worcester's conviction which was reversed and Jackson was not Ordered to do anything that he refused to do. It was actually the State of Georgia that was ordered to not put the man in prison. Nothing more, nothing less.

After, if Jackson entered into various removal treaties, those were his right as President. This case basically didn't have anything to do with exerting power over the President, it was one in a series of cases determining the rights of the individual states against the rights of the feds.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Jackson was not directed to DO anything by the Court. The narrow holding of the Court in WORCESTER v. STATE OF GA

It is the opinion of this court that the judgment of the superior court for the county of Gwinnett, in the state of Georgia, condemning Samuel A. Worcester to hard labour, in the penitentiary of the state of Georgia, for four years, was pronounced by that court under colour of a law which is void, as being repugnant to the constitution, treaties, and laws of the [31 U.S. 515, 563] United States, and ought, therefore, to be reversed and annulled.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=31&page=515

So, it was only Sam Worcester's conviction which was reversed and Jackson was not Ordered to do anything that he refused to do. It was actually the State of Georgia that was ordered to not put the man in prison. Nothing more, nothing less.

After, if Jackson entered into various removal treaties, those were his right as President. This case basically didn't have anything to do with exerting power over the President, it was one in a series of cases determining the rights of the individual states against the rights of the feds.

You are making this too difficult. The USSC ruled the Indian Removal Act unconstitutional. Therefore any treaty that President Jackson entered into with the Cherokee Nation would therefore be in direct disregard to The USSC ruling. President Jackson removed the Cherokee, in accordance to a treaty, that was unconstitutional, because the USSC ruled that he did not have the power to make such treaties. The USSC does not order the President to do anything, they rule it unconstitutional for him to do so.

 

[jillian]

You are making this too difficult. The USSC ruled the Indian Removal Act unconstitutional. Therefore any treaty that President Jackson entered into with the Cherokee Nation would therefore be in direct disregard to The USSC ruling. President Jackson removed the Cherokee, in accordance to a treaty, that was unconstitutional, because the USSC ruled that he did not have the power to make such treaties. The USSC does not order the President to do anything, they rule it unconstitutional for him to do so.

Sorry for making it difficult. But cases only say what they say

The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for GEORGIA to do so.

The Court ruled that the GA law contravened the Constitution, laws and treaties of the U.S. And *that* is why it couldn't be enforced and the law Unconstitutional. A treaty of the U.S. is a whole other matter. All the case says is that the States can't override the Feds.

Anyway, gotta run... Been fun!

laterz!

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Sorry for making it difficult. But cases only say what they say

The Court ruled that the GA law contravened the Constitution, laws and treaties of the U.S. And *that* is why it couldn't be enforced and the law Unconstitutional. A treaty of the U.S. is a whole other matter.

Anyway, gotta run...

laterz!

You weren't making it difficult for me. You were making to difficult for you. Step back and look at whole picture.