LeakGate Resolution:Bush's genius.

[Dr Grump]

Oh. Are you still participating? I thought you wimped out long ago. tard.

 

[CSM]

The president does not have the right to unilaterally determine whether or not the legislature has placed an improper and unconstitutional burden on the executive branch. Only the Court has the right to such oversight. Hence signing statements limiting the applicablility of laws to those occasions on which the president feels like abiding by their terms being inappropriate and improper.

True enough but, again, no where in that signing statement does he ever say any of what you and others imply. There is no doubt in my mind that if it ever came right down to it, the Supreme Court would decide who overstepped the Constitution. One more time, where does it say in that statement that this President or any other has the right or power to ignore the law of the land? I am not illiterate; I have read the document and I fail to see how you come up with the interpretation you are defending. It is pretty clear to me what " a manner consistent with the President's Constitutional authority" means. You and others may fear that the current Pesident's view on that statement is as you suggest, but the document itself does not state what that view is. You have applied your own interpretation and are trying to convince me to accept it as truth. What you present is pure speculation.

 

[Redhots]

Despite your best effort, I do not buy your (or the Globe's) interpretation of the signing statement

Why is that?

How do you read it?

WRT to the "Globe's" opinion, they simply quoted law professors and whitehouse staffers. Though each phrases it differently they both say the same thing. But I think i'm just repeating myself here.

I am interested in why interpret it differently.

 

[Redhots]

It is pretty clear to me what " a manner consistent with the President's Constitutional authority" means.

And just what does that mean with regards to the torture of prisioners?

 

[CSM]

Why is that?

How do you read it?

WRT to the "Globe's" opinion, they simply quoted law professors and whitehouse staffers. Though each phrases it differently they both say the same thing. But I think i'm just repeating myself here.

I am interested in why interpret it differently.

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. By the way, just so you know, I have little respect for "law professors" or any other kind of "professor", especially the ones that are more concerned with politics than they are teaching.

 

[Bonnie]

You are of course entitled to your opinion on whether the current President is a genius or not, but your assertions hold no more weight than anyone elses. Thus your admonission to RWA is merely 'fluff'. It does tell us where you stand though, so thanks for that. We needed anothe Bush hater on this board.

Just so ya know, the President does indeed have the right to declassify anything he wants to and the procedure is (as is true for most things classified in nature) is for final authority to declare it unclassified. Since the president is the Commander in Chief, he is the final authority on intelligence concerning the war on terror which includes operations in Iraq.

 

[jillian]

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. By the way, just so you know, I have little respect for "law professors" or any other kind of "professor", especially the ones that are more concerned with politics than they are teaching.

First, I appreciate the thoughtful nature of your post. I do not "hate" all things Republican, as you seem to infer from my comments. And, in fact, have voted both Democrat and Republican, depending upon the candidate. I am very displeased by the policies of this particular administration and find them contemptuous of those who question them. In my view, the language of the signing statement clearly sets forth that if the president thinks the law limits his Constitutional power, he will over-reach it. My only point was that it is not his place to make that determination, but rather the sole province of the Court.

I do agree that at some point it will be determined in that venue. I simply don't think any president should have unchecked power and that the purpose of the Constitution is to LIMIT government power and protect the rights of the individual.

BTW, I'm not quite sure of the basis for your comments about professors.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

First, I appreciate the thoughtful nature of your post. I do not "hate" all things Republican, as you seem to infer from my comments. And, in fact, have voted both Democrat and Republican, depending upon the candidate. I am very displeased by the policies of this particular administration and find them contemptuous of those who question them. In my view, the language of the signing statement clearly sets forth that if the president thinks the law limits his Constitutional power, he will over-reach it. My only point was that it is not his place to make that determination, but rather the sole province of the Court.

I do agree that at some point it will be determined in that venue. I simply don't think any president should have unchecked power and that the purpose of the Constitution is to LIMIT government power and protect the rights of the individual.

No law SHOULD limit his constitutional power, if it did, it would be unconstitutional.

 

[jillian]

No law SHOULD limit his constitutional power, if it did, it would be unconstitutional.

Yes. But only the High Court has the right to decide that....not the President and not Congress.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yes. But only the high Court has the right to decide that....not the president and not Congress.

Bush can decide on his own and see if the court backs him. I support that approach. Your endless occupation with details now that your main hyposthesis is shattered is amusing.

 

[jillian]

Bush can decide on his own and see if the court backs him. I support that approach. Your endless occupation with details now that your main hyposthesis is shattered is amusing.

You may like that approach but it is not the law. Constitutional oversight belongs only to the Court. On what do you base your belief that the law is otherwise?

What you ARE correct about is that WHEN he overreaches, there will, undoubtedly be a case brought before the Court.

What main hypothesis has been shattered? I'm correct as to the law.

Back to work for me now... always fun.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You may like that approach but it is not the law. Constitutional oversight belongs only to the Court. On what do you base your belief that the law is otherwise?

What you ARE correct about is that WHEN he overreaches, there will, undoubtedly be a case brought before the Court.

What main hypothesis has been shattered? I'm correct as to the law.

He has the right to state that he will not comply with laws that limit his contitutional authority. He has the right to preemptive thought and action without going to a court first. He will do what HE PERCEIVES is correct and if the court wants to stop him, let them bring a case. They're not going to, because he hasn't done anything inconsistent with his constitutional powers. Mountain out of a molehill much? You guys are never going to win another election if pettiness like this is all you have to offer.

 

[CSM]

First, I appreciate the thoughtful nature of your post. I do not "hate" all things Republican, as you seem to infer from my comments. And, in fact, have voted both Democrat and Republican, depending upon the candidate. I am very displeased by the policies of this particular administration and find them contemptuous of those who question them. In my view, the language of the signing statement clearly sets forth that if the president thinks the law limits his Constitutional power, he will over-reach it. My only point was that it is not his place to make that determination, but rather the sole province of the Court.

I do agree that at some point it will be determined in that venue. I simply don't think any president should have unchecked power and that the purpose of the Constitution is to LIMIT government power and protect the rights of the individual.

BTW, I'm not quite sure of the basis for your comments about professors.

Actually, I was replying to RedHots' post. I find it rather ironic that you think this administration is contemptuous of those who question them; have you listened to the rhetoric coming from the Dems? It is not only contemptuous, it is down right arrogant!

Your point is well taken that the Court decides WHERE the boundary lies. Conversely to your argument, neither is it up to the Congress to limit the power of the executive, yet I do not see you addressing THAT in your opinions; you seem to think that their not-so-veiled attempt is just fine. I also would point out that Bush's signing statement does not specify that boundary; I do believe it is entirely up to him to make that determination when and if the conflict does arise. If he oversteps, then shame on him and as I said, there are plenty of folks out there just waiting for that to happen and I am sure will bring it to the attention of the Judicial Branch before you can say "I told you so!" As to the actual statement, again, your interpretation is (I sincerely believe this) shaded by your obvious (and self admitted) dislike for this administration. Nowhere does it say that this President will step across any boundary but does specifically state that he will work within in the Constitutionally granted power given to the executive branch. Period. All the rhetoric that extrapolates beyond what is actually written is pure speculation on ANYONE's part.

As for the remark regarding college professors, I am one of those people who strongly believe that the hals of higher learning should be just that...places for one to continue their education. I do not believe it should be a place where those who are supposed to be educators should use their platform to espouse their political views and punish those who do not buy into those views. I have personally seen professsors give poor grades to those who express opposition to their political views. I personally have received poor grades simply because (at the time) I was a member of the US military. When I questioned the good professor as to WHY he gave me a poor grade in this class he replied "Because you are a baby-killing moron." Fortunately it was an elective and fortunately I did not punch the jerks lights out like I wanted to. I just laughed and walked away. It became clear to me at that time that colleges and professors are not REALLY interested in furthuring anyone's education. Obviously, examples abound currently that convince me it has only gotten worse (Ward Churchill is a glaring example).

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

How so?

Do the words Imminent Domain mean anything to you?

 

[Avatar4321]

LOL! Shocking from someone who thinks Bush is a genius. :

So...what would you call unchecked executive power?

It's a myth that the executive power is unchecked. or that the President is taking more power for himself.

The fact is the President is exercising the authority granted to him from the Constitution. Simply because Congress has tried to limit that inherent power in the past does not mean they had the constitutional ability to do so.

 

[Avatar4321]

If the president eliminates or sets procedures, those new procedures or changes need to be announced. It can't just be a unilateral determination as to what s politically helpful and the procedures or lack thereof can't be changed on a case by case basis.

No "cherry picking" involved. And the only thing disingenuous is "declassifying" material for no national security purpose, but to achieve a political end.

I'm pretty sure they were announced. After all, we are talking about them aren't we?

 

[Avatar4321]

Bush is not smart period. Those around him are, though...thought they would handle him better on this issue. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

You know, it never ceases to amaze me how many people seem to think President Bush is an idiot. His opponents keep "misunderstestimating" his intelligence and then are utterly confused when they keep losing. The only conclusion could possibly be that despite him being an idiot he somehow masterminds robbing them of the power they deserve.

Look he might not be the smartest person on earth. But to say he isnt smart is just plain stupid. People need to remember that just because someone isnt always articulate or says stupid things sometimes doesn't make them dumb and not worth listening to. Just like just because someone can articulate themselves doesn't mean they are smart or that they should be listened to.

A good example is Senator Kerry. Everyone in the first debate said he clearly won because Bush wasnt articulate and Kerry was. Well President Bush wasn't articulate. So what? Especially when Kerry announces that he is going to give nuclear material to Iran to help them out. Yeah he said it nicely, but does anyone honestly believe that would be a good idea?

There is more to intelligence then how you speak. And I know Stephen Hawkins would agree with me.

 

[Avatar4321]

I have no interest flaming.

Another poster made a request for proof.

I answered that request which in turn supplemented my postion that:

If you don't think Bush/Cheney would like unrestricted, or at the very least vastly increased Presidental powers.... Then...You...Haven't...Been...Paying...Attention.

Thanks for the warm welcome.

I have no doubt that they would like to exercise the executive power as the Constitutional grants it to them rather than be limited by the other branches in ways the Constitution does not authorize them.

Im still waiting to hear where Congress has authority to censure the President. Or to have any oversight of the executive branch preiod. These arent really the points in the thread. But these are things Congress has claimed to have power to do despite no grant of power to do so.

 

[jillian]

Actually, I was replying to RedHots' post. I find it rather ironic that you think this administration is contemptuous of those who question them; have you listened to the rhetoric coming from the Dems? It is not only contemptuous, it is down right arrogant!

I think if you look at it objectively, you might find that it all depends on whose ox is being gored. In my view, the right has acted pretty incorrigibly. I call it the "Rush Limbaugh School of Debate".

Your point is well taken that the Court decides WHERE the boundary lies. Conversely to your argument, neither is it up to the Congress to limit the power of the executive, yet I do not see you addressing THAT in your opinions; you seem to think that their not-so-veiled attempt is just fine.

Well, we were talking about the signing statement attached to the anti-torture bill. I don't think the president has a constitutional right to have anyone tortured, so don't see it as a limitation of his power. My assumption is that if a bill truly jeopardized the powers of the executive, the Justice Department would be on it pretty quickly.

I also would point out that Bush's signing statement does not specify that boundary; I do believe it is entirely up to him to make that determination when and if the conflict does arise. If he oversteps, then shame on him and as I said, there are plenty of folks out there just waiting for that to happen and I am sure will bring it to the attention of the Judicial Branch before you can say "I told you so!"

Probably true. And fair enough as to your opinion that it is up to the president to make the initial determination as to where the boundary lies.

As to the actual statement, again, your interpretation is (I sincerely believe this) shaded by your obvious (and self admitted) dislike for this administration.

Ah... but my dislike is a result of the actions already taken. I was not predisposed to disliking them and, as I said, I'm not allergic to Republicans, in general....just what I see as extremists who are caught up in the arrogance of power.

Nowhere does it say that this President will step across any boundary but does specifically state that he will work within in the Constitutionally granted power given to the executive branch. Period. All the rhetoric that extrapolates beyond what is actually written is pure speculation on ANYONE's part.

We clearly have a different take on it.

As for the remark regarding college professors, I am one of those people who strongly believe that the hals of higher learning should be just that...places for one to continue their education. I do not believe it should be a place where those who are supposed to be educators should use their platform to espouse their political views and punish those who do not buy into those views. I have personally seen professsors give poor grades to those who express opposition to their political views. I personally have received poor grades simply because (at the time) I was a member of the US military. When I questioned the good professor as to WHY he gave me a poor grade in this class he replied "Because you are a baby-killing moron." Fortunately it was an elective and fortunately I did not punch the jerks lights out like I wanted to. I just laughed and walked away. It became clear to me at that time that colleges and professors are not REALLY interested in furthuring anyone's education. Obviously, examples abound currently that convince me it has only gotten worse (Ward Churchill is a glaring example).

I don't think any student should be punished for their political views, or their religious views for that matter. And I don't think anyone, of any affiliation, should ram their political or religious views down anyone's throats. I do think dialogue is healthy, in its place. If someone is taking a cooking class, then yes, it's probably inappropriate for the teacher to hold class discussing his/her politics. However, if the class is political science, say something like "mid east politics", then it is appropriate for the professor to give his/her opinion on the WOT and how he/she sees it affecting the mid-east in the long and short term and also to make comments which make clear how the prof sees the conflict as it is being handled -- regardless of the side of the political divide on which he/she falls.

But again, I think such discussions should be without ramifications to any student who may disagree with the prof. Particularly in college, it is a time to debate and flesh out ideas. Pretty much what the socratic method is all about.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

My assumption is that if a bill truly jeopardized the powers of the executive, the Justice Department would be on it pretty quickly.

Hasn't anyone explained what happens when you assume?