Now that the furor has died down...

theHawk said:
Chimpy is a racist statement.
Bully is a racist.

Can I call myself a liberal now?
;)

Actually, it would be specieist, and an insult to chimpazees.

As for calling yourself a liberal, well, that would be inappropriate. Given your apparent cognitive limitations, it would be more appropriate to call yourself a right wing-nut Republican.
 
Bullypulpit said:
The evidence is there, but you seem to be one of those who would continue to support Chimpy even if he to be were caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl.

Don't be such a liar--this forum is full of people who are for AND opposed to many things Bush does.
 
Bullypulpit said:
The evidence is there, but you seem to be one of those who would continue to support Chimpy even if he to be were caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl.

I already showed in my last post that one was no different than the other.

Just to attempt tp clear your head a little, I don't blindly support President Bush. He's done plenty I'm not happy with.

It just looks that way to you because you are always concocting bullshit to accuse him of. Accuse him of something he's done.
 
Bullypulpit said:
Actually, it would be specieist, and an insult to chimpazees.

As for calling yourself a liberal, well, that would be inappropriate. Given your apparent cognitive limitations, it would be more appropriate to call yourself a right wing-nut Republican.

Can't believe YOU could question ANYONE's "cognitive limitations." You're so steeped in left-wing hated you can't even see things for what they are.

I'm not even sure you're a liberal. Just a Bush-hater. That's all I ever see from you.
 
Bullypulpit said:
Here's your :link:

<center><a href=http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.html>The Constitution of the United States</a></center>

Read and learn.

Aww is your feelings hurt?

You made several assertions of unconstitutional stuff.

So, are you asserting that if it isn't written in the constitution that it must be wrong?
 
pegwinn said:
Aww is your feelings hurt?

You made several assertions of unconstitutional stuff.

So, are you asserting that if it isn't written in the constitution that it must be wrong?

Why not? It's a game the right wing-nuts, under the guise of "original intent", play all the time.
 
Bullypulpit said:
Why not? It's a game the right wing-nuts, under the guise of "original intent", play all the time.

Ok then let's play........

But, along with this we also need to reverse the stuff done by the leftwingnuts as well.

Looks like someone took a page out of your playbook. It must suck having someone use your own tactics against you.
 
Bullypulpit said:
...And the Hamdan v Rumsfeld decision has been pushed out of the headlines by North Korea and Chimpy's visit to Dunkin' Donuts, let's look at the implications of that decision on his power-grab.

<blockquote>The first three aspects suggest a far-reaching defeat for the President: (1) The decision treats World War II precedents upholding military commissions as all but dead letters, affirming the primacy of ordinary civilian courts and formally-constituted courts martial; (2) The decision utterly rejects the Bush Administration's frequently invoked and sweeping claim that there is "inherent Executive Authority" to act unilaterally in matters of national security, recognizing instead that the Constitution gives Congress the leading role in establishing the rules for treatment of captives; (3) The decision finds the Geneva Conventions applicable to suspected al Qaeda captives in Afghanistan, thus implying that methods of interrogation that have been used against them constitute war crimes. - <a href=http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dorf/20060630.html>Michael C. Dorf</a>, <i>Finlaw's Writ</i>, 6/30/06</blockquote>

The first issue deals with the the precedent of <a href=http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/tmkeck/Cases/ExParteQuirin1942.html>the Quirin case</a> in 1942, establishing the definition of <i>unlawful combatants</i>. This undercuts administration policy with regards to the detention of unlawful combatants. Under Quirin, the prisoners were permitted to seek review and be represented by counsel. This in stark contrast to the administration policy of holding prisoners incommunicad and denying them representation or review of their status.

The second issue dismisses Chimpy's claim to sole authority in establishing rules governing the treatment of captives as well as undercutting his arguments for a "blank check" provided by the Use of Force Authorization after 9/11. The Constituion vests authority to "...make rules concerning captures on land and water..." as well as establishing the definition of what constitutes "...offenses against the law of nations...". Chimpy's claim to a unitary executive stands repudiated in other areas as weel, particularly in his aggressive use of signing statements to sidestep bills passed by Congress which he then signed into law.

With the advice of Alberto Gonzalez, Chimpy and his administration declared that the Geneva Conventions were "quaint" and "obsolete", and decided that any suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners captured in Aghanistan were exempt from the Article III provisions of the Conventions. Justice Kennedy, in this case, bascially said "Wrong answer!". Not only do the provisions of Article III apply, but:

<blockquote>"By Act of Congress . . . violations of Common Article 3 are considered 'war crimes,' punishable as federal offenses, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel," and "there should be no doubt . . . that Common Article 3 is part of the law of war as that term is used in" the UCMJ.</blockquote>

So, anyone involved in the use of the interrogation techniques (read as torture) can be subjected to prosecution for war crimes.


Bully, what 'force of law' do the signing statements have? How is Congress being harmed?
 
Kathianne said:
Bully, what 'force of law' do the signing statements have? How is Congress being harmed?

With his use of signing statements, rather than the veto, Chimpy has signed bills into law and then, quietly, after the press and the crowds have left, he issues signing statments which, in essence, state that he has the authority under the Constitution to ignore parts of the law he feels infringes upon his authority as POTUS. He does not have that authority enumerated anywhere in the Constitution. He can only send a bill back to Congress with a veto, to have those provisions he has difficulty with re-worked, or have his veto over-ridden.

As for how this harms Congress, it is as if no law has been passed by Congress at all and relegates Congress to no more than an advisory status rather than the coequal branch of government that it is. This undermines, in a very real way, the Constitutional separation of powers and threatens the very foundations of the Republic.
 
Bullypulpit said:
With his use of signing statements, rather than the veto, Chimpy has signed bills into law and then, quietly, after the press and the crowds have left, he issues signing statments which, in essence, state that he has the authority under the Constitution to ignore parts of the law he feels infringes upon his authority as POTUS. He does not have that authority enumerated anywhere in the Constitution. He can only send a bill back to Congress with a veto, to have those provisions he has difficulty with re-worked, or have his veto over-ridden.

As for how this harms Congress, it is as if no law has been passed by Congress at all and relegates Congress to no more than an advisory status rather than the coequal branch of government that it is. This undermines, in a very real way, the Constitutional separation of powers and threatens the very foundations of the Republic.

What is your suggestion to resolve this ? The government is now a reflection of how people voted. Should Congress or SCOTUS slap him down?
 
dilloduck said:
What is your suggestion to resolve this ? The government is now a reflection of how people voted. Should Congress or SCOTUS slap him down?

Congress has utterly failed in its oversight duties by not doing so doing so. But given as how the GOP conltrolled Congress is in virtual lockstep with the White House, no serious rebuke can be expected from that quarter. Given as how the conservative members of the SCOTUS, especially Sam Alito, are in favor of a unitary executive branch, and a case involving the matter has yet to reach even a federal district court we will not know that answer for some time.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top