Who Would You Like To See Run For President In 2008?

jillian said:
Really???? The guy who thinks the legistative and executive branches have the same power to interpret the Constitution as the SCOTUS??? He's one step to the right of Pat Robertson.... What about him appeals to you?

Newsflash: all three branches have the same right to interpret the Constitution. A Congressman can vote against a bill that he finds to be unconstitutional; the President can issue a veto on the same grounds.
 
Darwins Friend said:
Obama for pres - Hillary for V.P. Scare the living shit out of the Neo-Cons. :p:

What would be scary about that?

Quite the opposite, it should scare the living crap out of Obama. He would become the first dead black President should he win.
 
Kathianne said:
Actually I think he was a suicide candidate, he just didn't recognize Illinois politics.

You know Even though Alan sounds intelligent in some areas, i think he really doesnt have a grasp of politics at all even ever be seriously considered. The more I hear from him the less i think he gets it. He does have his moments though.
 
Avatar4321 said:
What would be scary about that?

Quite the opposite, it should scare the living crap out of Obama. He would become the first dead black President should he win.

Ah, racism - it’s what’s for dinner. :bye1:
 
Nuc said:
Don't you think it would have to be a winning ticket to scare the neo-cons?

Well considering the winning ticket is going to be the so called "Neo-con" party it really doesnt matter does it?
 
Darwins Friend said:
Ah, racism - it’s what’s for dinner. :bye1:
Explain. Coming from an Illinoisan that watched the catastrophe unfold.
 
jillian said:
Really???? The guy who thinks the legistative and executive branches have the same power to interpret the Constitution as the SCOTUS??? He's one step to the right of Pat Robertson.... What about him appeals to you?

They do have the same power. The Constitution gives all three branches of government equal power. Hence why the President can Veto and Congress.... well congress can simply not pass a law if they find it unconstitutional.

Personally i dont see why you think it would be extreme to have the same view of the Constitution as Thomas Jefferson and many of the other founders who were quite upset when the Supreme Court usurped sole interpretation authority for themselves in marbury v madison.
 
Darwins Friend said:
Ah, racism - it’s what’s for dinner. :bye1:

Ah, person who cant deal with the facts, so resorts to name calling. how sad.

How is it racist to simply point out that if Hillary ever ran as a VP, whomever ran as the first spot would be dead within a year?

Besides, Ive listened to Obama speak. He aint that impressive.
 
Avatar4321 said:
Ah, person who cant deal with the facts, so resorts to name calling. how sad.

How is it racist to simply point out that if Hillary ever ran as a VP, whomever ran as the first spot would be dead within a year?

Besides, Ive listened to Obama speak. He aint that impressive.



Damn ol' Hillary would be a very busy VP...hitting all the swap meets,bazaars,flea markets and the 'Big Nickle'....looking frantically for a antique pistol with a punch! :rotflmao:
 
Darwins Friend said:
Oh you’re quite right. George W. Bush is much more eloquent.
Hello neophyte. How about you pick your own candidate?
 
Big Blue Machin said:
I would support a conversative Democrat like Mark Warner or a moderate Republican like John McCain or Rudy Guiliani.
So you moved from Canada to US? If not...Loser.
 
Avatar4321 said:
They do have the same power. The Constitution gives all three branches of government equal power. Hence why the President can Veto and Congress.... well congress can simply not pass a law if they find it unconstitutional.

Personally i dont see why you think it would be extreme to have the same view of the Constitution as Thomas Jefferson and many of the other founders who were quite upset when the Supreme Court usurped sole interpretation authority for themselves in marbury v madison.

The Constitution gives each branch separate powers. Only the High Court can determine what acts are Constitutional and what acts aren't. And while I've never seen anything indicating that Thomas Jefferson had an quarrel with Marbury v Madison (though that doesn't mean nothing of the sort exists), it really doesn't matter what Jefferson wanted on that issue. Marbury is what binds the court and, by extension, binds the other branches of government.

As for why I think Keyes' view on this issue is "extreme", it's because it isn't how the law is interpreted by anyone whose job it is to interpret the law.

*Edit*Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78:

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents

BTW, did a little research, Jefferson was okay with the result in Marbury, but later complained about the Court thinking itself entitled to the sole power of judicial review.
 
Darwins Friend said:
Oh you’re quite right. George W. Bush is much more eloquent.

Well maybe thats the problem. you are looking for eloquence. im looking for substance. Liberalism in a nice sounding package is still liberalism and still going to fail.
 
jillian said:
BTW, did a little research, Jefferson was okay with the result in Marbury, but later complained about the Court thinking itself entitled to the sole power of judicial review.

:bang3: :bang3: :bang3:

What the heck do you think we are talking about? You just said i was wrong and then did some research and say that im right. Im just dumbfounded.

Like I was saying. the Court is not the only branch of government that can determine whether a law is constitutional.
 
Gem said:
Ed Rendell, Jillian???!!!???

The man tried to disenfranchise military voters in his state by trying to throw out every single absentee military ballot in the state of Pennsylvania in the last election!! The man is a thug.

He is also, according to friends of mine who worked at the Phila. D. A.'s office during his tenure, quite the P-hound. It would be like Clinton all over again.
 
Abbey Normal said:
He is also, according to friends of mine who worked at the Phila. D. A.'s office during his tenure, quite the P-hound. It would be like Clinton all over again.

I don't know what P-hound is and i probably dont want to. But living around Philly I know the damage he can do.

I still cant figure out how people voted him governor. I mean the guy freaking promised to make PA school systems look like Phillies. and Philly has one of the most screwed up school systems around.
 

Forum List

Back
Top