On the Past Days

[dilloduck]

no, nobody wins dillo. and you are so very correct when you talk about how YOU are responsible for the judges that are appointed by who you vote for be it president or senators.

Guess i'm responsible for telling em that they got it wrong too. Apparently no one else is. Congressional and Executive powers to balance the Judicial branch are woefully inadequate.

 

[manu1959]

Guess i'm responsible for telling em that they got it wrong too. Apparently no one else is. Congressional and Executive powers to balance the Judicial branch are woefully inadequate.

too true i belive it takes a 2/3s vote to get rid of them same as to get them in ... in the first place .... so if you like liberal judges vote liberal if you like conservative judges vote conservative

 

[no1tovote4]

too true i belive it takes a 2/3s vote to get rid of them same as to get them in ... in the first place .... so if you like liberal judges vote liberal if you like conservative judges vote conservative

It is especially important at the Federal and State levels to do this. Unfortunately you sometimes have to hold your nose in order to do so.

 

[musicman]

the congressional and executive branches worked together to pass a law for the benifit of one person.....i belive that is specifically prohibited by the rules of the congress and the executive branches .... congress shall pass no law ... blah blah blah

Actually, manu, I believe you're thinking of a "bill of attainder", which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. It forbids Congress to act in the matter of one party (party meaning "person") - but only where that matter involves the meting out of punishment for a crime. It doesn't apply here; that's just another one of Soros' clever little half-truths (I've always defined these as "LIES"). I'm sure the liberals are having a grand time, watching conservatives tear themselves to shreds over this stuff. Having no real plan of their own, all they have to do is sit on the sidelines and react to anything that happens - spinning it in the worst possible way for Republicans. What pisses me off is that, in this case, it's working.

 

[dilloduck]

Actually, manu, I believe you're thinking of a "bill of attainder", which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. It forbids Congress to act in the matter of one party (party meaning "person") - but only where that matter involves the meting out of punishment for a crime. It doesn't apply here; that's just another one of Soros' clever little half-truths (I've always defined these as "LIES"). I'm sure the liberals are having a grand time, watching conservatives tear themselves to shreds over this stuff. Having no real plan of their own, all they have to do is sit on the sidelines and react to anything that happens - spinning it in the worst possible way for Republicans. What pisses me off is that, in this case, it's working.

agreed---all chicken littles please shut up---you're embarassing!

 

[Annie]

Actually, manu, I believe you're thinking of a "bill of attainder", which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. It forbids Congress to act in the matter of one party (party meaning "person") - but only where that matter involves the meting out of punishment for a crime. It doesn't apply here; that's just another one of Soros' clever little half-truths (I've always defined these as "LIES"). I'm sure the liberals are having a grand time, watching conservatives tear themselves to shreds over this stuff. Having no real plan of their own, all they have to do is sit on the sidelines and react to anything that happens - spinning it in the worst possible way for Republicans. What pisses me off is that, in this case, it's working.

MM, I would hope that the administration, GOP recognizes that many of the 'party faithful' are not in lockstep with them, that we do have ideals that we think the party should stand for. When we criticize the left, for behaviors that are wrong, such as Reno calling in the feds to take Elian, we need to be consistant to those seperations.

Many of those that disagree on this one issue, are not in favor of the feeding tube being removed. Problem is the fight was in the FL Senate, not the US Senate. It's in the states that abortion decisions should be made, NOT SCOTUS.

In the past couple of days, Bush referred to the Minutemen as vigilantes, when they've yet done anything. Suddenly today it's announced that there will be 500 new border patrol guards for AZ. This doesn't bother you?

 

[musicman]

I've read it, many times. What you fail to understand is that the constitution applies to the FEDERAL courts. the states courts are an entirely different matter and according to the 10th amendment, those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the state or the people.

And a grand amendment it is, Smarter - certainly one of my faves. I believe it really puts the teeth in our founders' intent that the people should govern themselves. The federal, centralized government on high has a very limited, very specific list of powers, and beyond these, it is EXPRESSLY instructed to butt the hell out. It couldn't be any clearer if it was a button-hook in the well water.

But, while we're speaking of amendments, let's not forget the XIVth. This is a good one, too - although liberal judges have spent my lifetime using a deliberately fllawed, agenda-driven interpretation of it to impose upon America the scourge of judicial activism. Twisting definition until it screams in agony, they have - in the name of this honorable piece of constitutional law - engaged in the worst kind of elitist tyranny, imposing their aspirations to social engineering upon America despite its will. So, we may certainly be forgiven if we're ultra-sensitive about federal intervention in state matters.

When the XIVth Amendment is applied properly, its practical effect is to ensure that, when state law comes into conflict with the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights wins. That's a "good thing"! It is applied improperly when it allows the feds to stick their noses into matters of behavior and religion (abortion and nativity scenes) that are clearly, EXPRESSLY, none of its business. It is applied properly when a plausible case can be made that an American is about to be deprived of her life without due process of law.

 

[musicman]

MM, I would hope that the administration, GOP recognizes that many of the 'party faithful' are not in lockstep with them, that we do have ideals that we think the party should stand for. When we criticize the left, for behaviors that are wrong, such as Reno calling in the feds to take Elian, we need to be consistant to those seperations.

Many of those that disagree on this one issue, are not in favor of the feeding tube being removed. Problem is the fight was in the FL Senate, not the US Senate. It's in the states that abortion decisions should be made, NOT SCOTUS.

In the past couple of days, Bush referred to the Minutemen as vigilantes, when they've yet done anything. Suddenly today it's announced that there will be 500 new border patrol guards for AZ. This doesn't bother you?

As to the first two paragraphs, we are in nearly perfect agreement. On the third, I'm afraid you have me at something of a disadvantage. Could you flesh that out a bit, or steer me toward a news story?

 

[Annie]

As to the first two paragraphs, we are in nearly perfect agreement. On the third, I'm afraid you have me at something of a disadvantage. Could you flesh that out a bit, or steer me toward a news story?

Sure. In this press briefing, there is a bit about both Terri and Minutemen:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050329-1.html

...Q In the Terri Schiavo case, there seems to be more efforts to exhaust legal wranglings to reinsert Terri Schiavo's tube. What are the President's thoughts about this. As he said, there's nothing else he could have done.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I don't think that's what the President said, first of all. Let me correct you on that. The President is saddened by the situation. We continue to stand on the side of defending life. We stand on the side of the parents and all those who are working to defend life. This is a complex case, and the President believes in a situation like this, we should always err on the side of life. And so we will continue to stand with all those who are seeking to defend life.

Q So is he working with the senators in some kind

-- working the phones, some kind of backdoor approach to possibly work out some kind of emergency situation to reinsert this tube?

MR. McCLELLAN: As he spoke about last week, we looked at all our options, we explored all our options from the executive branch side, and we made a decision to support the congressional efforts. And Congress passed legislation that the President signed; that legislation gave her parents another opportunity to try to save their daughter's life. They are continuing to work, as well as others, to save their daughters life. And we will continue to stand with those who are on the side of defending life. The President believes that our nation, in situations like this, where someone is at the mercy of others, we should have a presumption in favor of life.

Q Has the President, since he feels so strongly about this, has he reached out to the parents of Terri Schiavo?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't have any updates on phone calls he's had with them, but obviously, like I said, we continue to stand on the side of the parents and all those who are working to defend life in this situation.

Q Mexico's President Fox announced during his news conference that our border fence between San Diego and Tijuana, in his words, must be demolished. My first question: During their subsequent Waco summit, did President Bush in any way reply to this Fox demand, which Senator Kyl of Arizona called, downright insulting, other than Mr. Bush denouncing the American Minutemen as "vigilantes"?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, a couple things. First of all, this goes to a much larger issue, this question, and the larger issue is making sure that we have a safe, orderly and humane migration system. We have worked closely with Mexico on issues relating to our borders. There is more that we can do to control our borders, and the Department of Homeland Security is working to do that every day. We have an increase in the number of agents along the border, they're working to address the situation in some of the areas where you're referencing, as well.

And the President put forward an initiative, his temporary worker initiative, to address some of these issues, because we have a problem in this country where now I think it's some 10 million undocumented immigrants working in this country. And they oftentimes are coming here simply to support their families back home. And they're also filling jobs that otherwise are not being filled by American citizens. So there is an economic need that we can address.

And there is also -- by addressing this situation, the President believes we can do a better job of enforcing our borders and going after those who are coming here for the wrong reason -- whether it's terrorists or people intent on criminal activity. This will free up our border patrol and border agents to go after those who should not be coming into this country in the first place.

Q The Washington Times has listed nine countries who have either built or are building border fences. Has President Fox, to your knowledge, condemned any border fence, beside our border fence? And why is denouncing the Arizona Minutemen any better than denouncing neighborhood crime watchers?

MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. I mean, the President spoke to this issue last week and I think he addressed it very clearly for you all.

In terms of President Fox, I'm not going to try to comment for him -- you might want to direct those questions to his office. But I know that the Department of Homeland Security, regarding the question you're bringing up, tomorrow is going to be having an announcement in Tucson, Arizona, about an initiative they're undertaking along the Arizona border to better control the border there.

In terms of the issue of the Minutemen that you bring up, again, the President spoke to that issue last week. And it's one thing if people are working along the border, simply to report suspicious activity, and that activity should be reported to the proper authorities -- the Department of Homeland Security officials, who are there to enforce our borders. If people are operating outside of the law, that cannot be tolerated. That's a different --

Q Well, that's my point. That's what they're doing -- they're neighborhood crime watch.

MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on. Hang on. That's a different matter. People cannot take things into their own hands. But if they see suspicious activity, they should report that suspicious activity to the proper authorities and --

Q And that doesn't make them vigilantes, does it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if you're talking about a group of armed, untrained individuals roaming around the desert, that would be something that would concern us and it would increase the chance that someone could get hurt. And we don't want people operating outside the law -- the President made that very clear last week. So if you're talking about people reporting suspicious activity, that's one thing. If you're talking about people operating outside the law, that's another matter and it's one that cannot be allowed to happen.

Q Just to follow up on the Schiavo case, if I can. The parents' allies have suggested that the President has it within his power to ask the Attorney General to take the daughter into protective custody as a potential federal witness, thus saving her life. Does he have it within his power?

MR. McCLELLAN: Mark, again, I think the President addressed the issue last week. We did look at all our options, our White House Counsel's Office. We worked with the Justice Department, looked at all options. The decision was made to support the congressional efforts. But we will continue to stand with those who are defending life. This is a complex case and there are extraordinary circumstances involved here. And there are people that are still working to save her life...

Here's The BUSH story on Minutemen:

Bush decries border project

By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

WACO, Texas — President Bush yesterday said he opposes a civilian project to monitor illegal aliens crossing the border, characterizing them as "vigilantes."

He said he would pressure Congress to further loosen immigration law.

More than 1,000 people — including 30 pilots and their private planes — have volunteered for the Minuteman Project, beginning next month along the Arizona-Mexico border. Civilians will monitor the movement of illegal aliens for the month of April and report them to the Border Patrol...

 

[dilloduck]

I see consistency if one looks at it from the side of supporting life.

 

[Bonnie]

Merlin 1047...I believe that if the Republicans continue to act as arrogantly as they currently are, there will be hell to pay in 2008.

While I respect you opinion that Congress stepped out of line in this matter, I would also question if you really want to use the term arrogant in reference to saving an innocent woman's life.

I've noticed as many have the media's and the Liberal spin on this tragedy culminating with the usual let's blame religious kooks who have no business in this matter. Frankly if I wasn't sick of it before, I really am sick of it now.
For people in responsible positions to be actually saying that religious people or Christians are out of line and crazy, wrong, for standing up for human life is something that is very dangerous, and I would say further that those who are exploiting this horror to further their anti christian agenda are the sorriest lot of people this country has the displeasure of having.
I'm certainly no expert in Constitutional law, but
I have heard legal scholars say over and over again that Congress has the authority to intervene in cases like this if they so desire for many reasons we have already discussed most importantly to keep in check an activist judiciary.

Before you abandon the Republican Party you may want to remember that the other party has overstepped it's bounds many times over and for very shallow self serving reasons. It was Terri's family that went to Washington and pleaded with members on both sides of the aisle to do something because they believed, and rightfully so, that Terri was not afforded due process even though a number of judges made rulings based on the same evidence and essentially just rubber stamped it through the courts. It was the courts that arrogantly told Congress to stick it up their assess at the expense of a woman's life, so I would say the arrogance belongs to those judges who seem to think they are the law.

 

[musicman]

Sure. In this press briefing, there is a bit about both Terri and Minutemen:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050329-1.html



Here's The BUSH story on Minutemen:

This is where President Bush's stance absolutely mystifies me - always has. What are we supposed to tell immigrants who did it right, obeyed the law, went through proper procedures, and are productive citizens - "Sorry, stupidass"???!!

The GOP is , most assuredly, at a fork in the road. I believe they have been successful to the degree that they have adhered to the conservative principles cherished by most Americans - the simple, common sense beliefs that have made this country great. I see no simplicity, common sense, OR principle in the Party's present stand on immigration.

Who goes there, Mr. President - friend or foe?

 

[sitarro]

Gem, you are most assuredly on a ROLL! I've been trying to "point" you for two days on various topics - I'll do it yet!

I second that . That was a gem of a post Gem . . . sorry I had to do it .

 

[no1tovote4]

MM, I would hope that the administration, GOP recognizes that many of the 'party faithful' are not in lockstep with them, that we do have ideals that we think the party should stand for. When we criticize the left, for behaviors that are wrong, such as Reno calling in the feds to take Elian, we need to be consistant to those seperations.

Many of those that disagree on this one issue, are not in favor of the feeding tube being removed. Problem is the fight was in the FL Senate, not the US Senate. It's in the states that abortion decisions should be made, NOT SCOTUS.

In the past couple of days, Bush referred to the Minutemen as vigilantes, when they've yet done anything. Suddenly today it's announced that there will be 500 new border patrol guards for AZ. This doesn't bother you?

See, I agree with this. My argument is simply it was not Unconsitutional to make that law that allowed the courts to review her case and insure her Federal Rights were upheld, not that it was right to make that law. This should be battled out in the FL Legislature.

 

[dilloduck]

See, I agree with this. My argument is simply it was not Unconsitutional to make that law that allowed the courts to review her case and insure her Federal Rights were upheld, not that it was right to make that law. This should be battled out in the FL Legislature.

Do you feel it is such a grievous error that the GOP should be hanging it's head in shame?

 

[no1tovote4]

Do you feel it is such a grievous error that the GOP should be hanging it's head in shame?

Not really...

 

[SmarterThanYou]

When the XIVth Amendment is applied properly, its practical effect is to ensure that, when state law comes into conflict with the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights wins. That's a "good thing"! It is applied improperly when it allows the feds to stick their noses into matters of behavior and religion (abortion and nativity scenes) that are clearly, EXPRESSLY, none of its business. It is applied properly when a plausible case can be made that an American is about to be deprived of her life without due process of law.

state laws can NEVER come into conflict with the bill of rights. I say NEVER. That is because the state is bound by and governed by the bill of rights like all the other states of this union. If a law is written that is in conflict with the bill of rights then that law is ruled unconstitutional. There is no conflict with the bill of rights in this case. Trying to use the argument about proper and improper uses of it with regards to abortion and nativity scenes is useless and irrelevant to me because I agree with you on that.

 

[dilloduck]

state laws can NEVER come into conflict with the bill of rights. I say NEVER. That is because the state is bound by and governed by the bill of rights like all the other states of this union. If a law is written that is in conflict with the bill of rights then that law is ruled unconstitutional. There is no conflict with the bill of rights in this case. Trying to use the argument about proper and improper uses of it with regards to abortion and nativity scenes is useless and irrelevant to me because I agree with you on that.

do we have to wait for the supreme court to make a ruling?

 

[manu1959]

you know if we lived in a third world country we wouldn't be having this discussion beacuse she would have died 15 years ago

 

[no1tovote4]

you know if we lived in a third world country we wouldn't be having this discussion beacuse she would have died 15 years ago

This morning on the radio I heard some woman comparing the policemen who are keeping people out of the Hospice to Nazis.

I couldn't help thinking of the fact that if this was Hitler's Germany she would have been killed immediately regardless of her or her family's wishes. If they complained at all they would have been killed too. There would be no people talking about any rights as this would not have hit the news, if it did the reporter that printed such an article and the editor that allowed it to be put into print would have also been killed. The cops would not be there to insure that nobody illegally entered a Hospice they would be there to kill any and all protestors. There would be no arrest and release orders from the courts as the courts would not have been consulted in any way.

I think there should be some sort of moratorium on comparing anybody to anything nazi, people that say these things have no idea what they are really comparing.