Bush violates Civil Rights Act

[manu1959]

"PRESIDENT BUSH: People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers' background; they want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion. Part of it has to do with the fact that she was a pioneer woman and a trailblazer in the law in Texas. ...."


Alright grammer expert, perhaps you can tell us what word differentiates the last sentence as being a qualification from the second to last sentence as being a non-qaulification about her life? How do we know it isn't the other way around? How do we know they aren't both just about her life and not listed as qualifications? Tell me, English teacher, we all want to know. Perhaps the President completely forgot that he even said "People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers" and instead went on to tell us about her life instead? I might believe that - he is pretty scatter brained. But I would like to know what differentiates one from being a qualification and one from being simply about her life - especially considering they are both "part" of something, according to you, two different things.

dude....you kicked your own ass twice in this thread already.....what are you doing going for the natural hat trick :wank:

 

[SpidermanTuba]

This was your position in another thread. You expected the President to violate Posse Comitatus simply because nobody had been prosecuted and there was no legal controlling authority. What hypocrisy!
.

Actually, its my view Posse Comitatus doesn't even apply to the President in this case.


"Congress has also approved the use of the military in civilian law enforcement through the Civil Disturbance Statutes: 10 U.S.C., sections 331–334. These provisions permit the president to use military personnel to enforce civilian laws where the state has requested assistance or is unable to protect civil rights and property."

Notice the word OR. The President may use the military to enforce the law if he is requested by the state OR where the state is unable to protect rights and property. Since you're such a grammer expert, you should know that by "or" the writer means that only one of the two conditions must be satisfied. THe writer is Major Craig Trebilcock, a member of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps in the U.S. Army Reserve, who probably know a lot more about Posse Comitatus (and grammar) than you or I.

http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm

Its also my view that violating the law to save people's lives is profoundly different from violating the law to stack the Supreme Court in favor of your particular race or religion.


Do you believe that the law should be enforced against the young man, who, technically, STOLE a bus in N.O. to save people's lives? I don't - does that make me a hypocrite because I believe ordinarily the law should be enforced?














So here we have it - no1tovote4 believes that kid that stole the bus in NO to evacuate his familiy and a bunch of sick and elderly people should be prosecuted under the law. Afterall, if no1tovote4 didn't believe that, no1tovote4 would be a hypocrit for thinking the law should be enforced sometimes but not other times.



I suppose no1tovote4 also believe the man who went around looting baby formula to bring to mothers at the Convention Center should also be sent to prison for his heinous act.

Keep in mind also - these are FELONIOUS acts, violating Posse Comitatus is a misdemeanor.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

dude....you kicked your own ass twice in this thread already.....what are you doing going for the natural hat trick :wank:

You sure like to jerk off a lot. You know, there is a 12 step program for that.

 

[manu1959]

You sure like to jerk off a lot. You know, there is a 12 step program for that.

hey man it is mine and i will wash it as fast and as often as i like....

 

[Gunny]

The Civil Rights Act prohibits employers - or the one doing the hiring for the employer - from discriminating base on religion, race, or national origin. Bush has clearly stated Miers' religion to be part of the reason he nominated her - a clear violation.

Ummm..... sorry ...... no sale. He says "part of her life is her religion."

To play YOUR leftist, literalist game .... WHERE does he say he nominated her for her religion?

Nominating someone for because they are religious, or for nominating them for their religious beliefs are two, completely separate things. But then you know that, don't you?

 

[Gunny]

You sure like to jerk off a lot. You know, there is a 12 step program for that.

I fail to see what your interest in manu's equipment has to do with the topic.

 

[Avatar4321]

ST still hasnt explained how the President is employing her.

 

[Gunny]

ST still hasnt explained how the President is employing her.

I'm not holding my breath on that one.

 

[theHawk]

So here we have it - no1tovote4 believes that kid that stole the bus in NO to evacuate his familiy and a bunch of sick and elderly people should be prosecuted under the law. Afterall, if no1tovote4 didn't believe that, no1tovote4 would be a hypocrit for thinking the law should be enforced sometimes but not other times.



I suppose no1tovote4 also believe the man who went around looting baby formula to bring to mothers at the Convention Center should also be sent to prison for his heinous act.

This is completely out of line. You are now putting words in other people's mouths.

 

[no1tovote4]

Actually, its my view Posse Comitatus doesn't even apply to the President in this case.


"Congress has also approved the use of the military in civilian law enforcement through the Civil Disturbance Statutes: 10 U.S.C., sections 331–334. These provisions permit the president to use military personnel to enforce civilian laws where the state has requested assistance or is unable to protect civil rights and property."

This is for Civil Disturbance and doesn't apply for hurricanes... Read the first line.

Notice the word OR. The President may use the military to enforce the law if he is requested by the state OR where the state is unable to protect rights and property. Since you're such a grammer expert, you should know that by "or" the writer means that only one of the two conditions must be satisfied. THe writer is Major Craig Trebilcock, a member of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps in the U.S. Army Reserve, who probably know a lot more about Posse Comitatus (and grammar) than you or I.

It could be argued, and would be by the left had he sent them on in, that the NO Police had begun to restore order and thus it would be a violation of this provision. And it certainly doesn't apply for a hurricane is it was not a Civil Disturbance...

The only Military force exempt from Posse Comitatus was there, they distinguished themselves. They are the Coast Guard. However you are correct that the President can waive the law in cases of emergency, I wish he had rather than working to get the approval of the Governor, it is likely he didn't think she would be so insufferably stupid. However the law you quote is under the Attorney General and not the President. Much like your Dept of Homeland Security being responsible and not the Governor for their action in keeping help from those that were on the news most in need of help.

(sigh I guess I will do your homework for you...)

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

There are a number of exceptions to the act. These include:

1. National Guard units while under the authority of the governor of a state;
2. Troops when used pursuant to the Federal authority to quell domestic violence as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles riots;
3. The President of the United States can waive this law in an emergency; (I do wish he had rather than thinking the Governor would be reasonable).
4. In December 1981 additional laws were enacted (codified 10 USC 371-78) clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies—including the Coast Guard—especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance) while generally prohibiting direct participation of Department of Defense personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews.
5. Under 18 USC 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if civilian law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threat involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a Nuclear or Radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect US military preparedness

http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm

Its also my view that violating the law to save people's lives is profoundly different from violating the law to stack the Supreme Court in favor of your particular race or religion.

However he hasn't violated either law. He didn't violate Posse Comitatus, in fact followed it too closely, and didn't violate this one. Regardless of your twist when speaking of her LIFE he is not speaking of her QUALIFICATIONS, as you have finally admitted words actually do mean something.

Do you believe that the law should be enforced against the young man, who, technically, STOLE a bus in N.O. to save people's lives? I don't - does that make me a hypocrite because I believe ordinarily the law should be enforced?

I believe that it could be enforced, but will not be and personally don't believe it should. If it were it is likely that a jury would negate it by refusing to convict, as is within their rights. Just as a District Attorney can choose whether or not to bring it to trial.

So here we have it - no1tovote4 believes that kid that stole the bus in NO to evacuate his familiy and a bunch of sick and elderly people should be prosecuted under the law. Afterall, if no1tovote4 didn't believe that, no1tovote4 would be a hypocrit for thinking the law should be enforced sometimes but not other times.

So here we have it - ST attempts to give me my opinion once again without actually asking for it or reading the actual posts. He reads only a portion and disregards whatever doesn't fit into his narrow views of how I must believe. (I bet he still thinks I am a republican, I bet he even thinks I like Bush.)

I suppose no1tovote4 also believe the man who went around looting baby formula to bring to mothers at the Convention Center should also be sent to prison for his heinous act.

Nope. But I think that those who stole televisions and DVDs should.

I also believe that if the President violated or appeared to violate the Posse Comitatus act the left would be SCREAMING for his impeachment and that the President is currently unpopular enough that it may even have been effective as a political play. I think that had the President done as you wanted him to do and simply sent them in to restore law and order you would have mentioned that the police were there and had begun to restore order thus showing that they were able to and that the provision that allowed the President to send in the troops to do so for them when they can't would be null and void.

I believe it because it is evidenced by a desperate attempt to make one sentence about her life into a qualification for hiring a SCOTUS judge, and your argument here, you are the only one that argues the President should break a law when it benefits your ideological view.

Keep in mind also - these are FELONIOUS acts, violating Posse Comitatus is a misdemeanor.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors, it doesn't take a Felony to impeach a President. You are right, after further investigation of the actual law, he couldn't have been impeached but it certainly would be used against him by people like you. Shoot you twist one sentence into a violation, imagine the use of the military as police in LA!

What a buffoon! Your ideological blinders cannot even allow you to blame the Governor and Mayor and list their mistakes, you only state "they were at fault" then excuse it by saying FEMA was more responsible when it is clear FEMA couldn't send in people where the LA Dept of Homeland Security wouldn't allow their volunteers to go. It must all be the President's fault, even when it clearly isn't. The governor didn't use her power to cut the red tape and expedite help, she didn't even know that she should have....

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The Civil Rights Act prohibits employers - or the one doing the hiring for the employer - from discriminating base on religion, race, or national origin. Bush has clearly stated Miers' religion to be part of the reason he nominated her - a clear violation.

Then the US Constitution is in violation of the civil rights act, cuz it specifically states that to be President, one has to be a natural born citizen. Hmmmmm :wank:

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Hiring someone based in part or in whole on their race, religion, or nation of origin is.

No it isnt.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Uh -

He is also bound by the CONSITUTION not to impose a religious test for office.

You think the Supreme court Justices who were sworn in on a Bible will agree with you? :wank:

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You sure like to jerk off a lot. You know, there is a 12 step program for that.

Actually, I think those are 12 stroke programs... :wank:


(oddly enough, when responding to the ST, before having seen Manu's post, the wanking emoticon was the one I also thought most appropriate in responding to this guy), but , ahhh, maybe we should just throw in a little