Cindy Sheehan quits

[loosecannon]

Again you perceive it that way because of your political leanings which makes perfect sense.

There is no possiblility what so ever that you are simply wrong. That what you perceive as selfish simply isn't. Given your condescending "I'm-smarter-than-you" tone I doubt you will even attempt to examine your assumptions. Your tone alone indicates that whatever consensus you believe there is, is not rooted in any type of objectivity as is apparent of your immediate translation of the desire to better one's self and achieve whatever they dream you immediatley and unthinkingly translated to selfishness.

Those quotes indicate that a society driven by the benefit of all will only be as good as it's lowest common denominator and that the authority that takes from one claiming to better the whole is in fact taking from the whole.

Denny I suggest you read what the established POV on Rand is. Even her advocates openly admit that she enshrined selfishness as a virtue.

It is her claim to fame. Her hallmark achievement to justify self interest as the virtuous director of human destiny.

Read up m'man.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LINK



LINK



Exactly, the president's authorities are absconded from the congress and relinquished by the congress. The entire lot of them should be/would be impeached if they were not culpable at large.

Here ya go Article II of the Constitution, try section 2 and then 3.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section3

 

[loosecannon]

The argument you're making now has been going on since John Adams with no clear-cut winner on either side. It ebbs and flows depending on who is President and who is Congress.

IMO, Congress can and has in the past assumed too much power. It's supposed to be a balancing act, but it never truly is.

Gunny it is way out of balance today and there is a movement of judges and politicos who intend to extend that imbalance to it's limits.

The original balance of powers is eroded out of recognition.

 

[Gunny]

LINK



LINK



Exactly, the president's authorities are absconded from the congress and relinquished by the congress. The entire lot of them should be/would be impeached if they were not culpable at large.

What I think is missing here is this ... the President is required to submit a budget to Congress. The President is also required to sign the budget into law. The Congress is responsible for compiling a budget for the Nation but has no authority to enact it as law without the President's signature. That's the check and balance.

The President refusing to sign a budget that either includes something he doesn't want or doesn't include something he DOES want is hardly Bush setting a precedent.

I agree that Congress abdicated its responsibility in terms of declaring war. However, in that too, Congress cannot declare war without a request from the President, IIRC.

Where the budget is concerned, I think far too much responsibility is being put on Congress for Bush refusing to sign a bill he doesn't like.

 

[loosecannon]

Truly it's kinda retarded to ask for links for the basic underpinnings of our republic. Did you ditch both jr. high and jr. year of hs?

Bullshit. The President is not required to present a budget.

So LINKS(?) is the appropriate question.

 

[Bern80]

Denny I suggest you read what the established POV on Rand is. Even her advocates openly admit that she enshrined selfishness as a virtue.

It is her claim to fame. Her hallmark achievement to justify self interest as the virtuous director of human destiny.

Read up m'man.

I would be more interested in seeing what qualifies as 'established' in your elitist world.

Her claim to fame is quite something that nothing trumps personal autonomy. I have studied her, I had a the better part of semester dedicated to her my undergrad sr. year.

She has zero to do with selfishness, but again it is easy to see how one could construe it that way. Selfishness requires a certain lvl of malciciousness which is not what her charcters where about. Hammond, Gault none if them were malicious. they simply wanted to be left to do their work without interference, w/o people taking what they had earned and giving it to those that hadn't as indicated by the second quote I posted.

Rands focus is not really on these people. Her focus is on the people that made demands of people like Hammond. Telling him what he must do and give to people that hadn't earned that which he had. It is those people that were selfish.

And even if that is the consensus (still not sure what exactley constitutes and 'established POV' (who is considered 'established'? How is their interpretation any better than mine?)) they may still be wrong.

 

[loosecannon]

Here ya go Article II of the Constitution, try section 2 and then 3.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section3

AND as expected that link addressed neither the pres's requirement to submit a budget or his power to use the military however he likes.

Let yourself off easy. You mispoke. Let it go. No need to embarrass yourself by grasping onto a false assertion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Claiming the President plays no part in the Budget is idiotic to put it bluntly.

Wanna know another secret? Congress a while back passed a law that requires the President to recommend pay increases for Congress, based on a chart of inflation and other economic factors. The old requirement was that Both parts of Congress had to vote FOR the increase. The new requirement is they now have to vote to NOT get the raise. And there is a deadline. Basicly Congress now can claim " hey the President, not us, ask for the pay raise"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

AND as expected that link addressed neither the pres's requirement to submit a budget or his power to use the military however he likes.

Let yourself off easy. You mispoke. Let it go. No need to embarrass yourself by grasping onto a false assertion.

The one looking a fool would be you.

 

[musicman]

Quote:
Well the rainman gave me two cures and he said jump right in. The one was Texas medicine, the other was just railroad gin. And like a fool I mixed them and it scrambled up my mind. And now people just get uglier and I have no sense of time...

Mona tried to tell me
To stay away from the train line.
She said that all the railroad men
Just drink up your blood like wine.
An' I said, "Oh, I didn't know that,
But then again, there's only one I've met
An' he just smoked my eyelids
An' punched my cigarette."

Oh, mama - can this really be the end...

 

[loosecannon]

What I think is missing here is this ... the President is required to submit a budget to Congress.

Find me a link, cuz i have consti scholars who say otherwise.

Where the budget is concerned, I think far too much responsibility is being put on Congress for Bush refusing to sign a bill he doesn't like.

Then you are at odds with the design of the constitution Gunny.

Congress has ALL the power to make legislation. The measly exec can veto or approve.

In exactly the same measure do you believe or not that Congress has a full right to veto any of the pres's appointments.

Veto power is identical to "advise and consent" powers.

 

[Alucard]

AND as expected that link addressed neither the pres's requirement to submit a budget or his power to use the military however he likes.

Let yourself off easy. You mispoke. Let it go. No need to embarrass yourself by grasping onto a false assertion.

"Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States"

That means use the military however he likes...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Try this link, I realize you will have to come back and apologize after you do so. But i wont hold my breath...

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00001105----000-.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And then of course there is this link for Commander in Chief....

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/07.html

 

[loosecannon]

Oh, mama - can this really be the end...

... to be stuck inside of Mobile with those Memphis blues again

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Shall I quote the applicable portions from the two links?

 

[loosecannon]

Try this link, I realize you will have to come back and apologize after you do so. But i wont hold my breath...

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00001105----000-.html

The information in the published US Code is a year or two old, having been subjected to extensive review and codification edits. It is not supposed to directly represent the news from Congress. There are other publications for the latest laws.

The most recent edit of Title 31 of the US Code was released by the Law Revision Counsel - LRC - ( http://uscode.house.gov/) of the U.S. House of Representative on 2006-10-30

...and most recently processed by the Legal Information Institute on Tue Oct 31 04:42:54 2006

Thank you RetiredGySgt.

It became law a few weeks before the midterm. Under a GOP senate.

 

[musicman]

... to be stuck inside of Mobile with those Memphis blues again

LOL - I've had that song in my head ever since I read your post. That's cool, though - it's a great tune.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No it is a law from 1950.

 

[Ninja]

No it is a law from 1950.

DOH!