who does Cheney think he is?

[hjmick]

You know that her trip was done with full knowledge of the White House, right?

But not with their approval. In fact, they specifically asked her not to go, as they did with the Republicans who had gone over on an earlier jaunt. The biggest difference is, the conservative pundits grabbed hold of the Pelosi trip for the obvious partisan reasons, that's why we all know about it.

 

[Edward]

You mean like the Speaker of the House going to foreign Countries and conducting Foreign Policy?

The role of the Speaker of the House, and every member of Congress is to be aware of foreign affairs, and it is their responsibility to learn those things and the people who drafted the Constitution recognized that. Even I, who doesn't agree with the premise of the Constitution understands that this is a function that they possess. They make legislative decisions that require them to know and to understand these complicated issues. The discussion about the length of the term of members of Congress and their eligibility to run for re-election involved this very issue. It was argued that they would be required to know the "law of nations," and to understand foreign policy.

The supporters of the Constitution stated in the Federalist Papers, "No man can be a competent legislator who does not add to an upright intention and a sound judgment a certain degree of knowledge of the subjects on which he is to legislate." This in the most general sense tells us that those who drafted the Constitution felt that legislators should possess a degree of knowledge on any matter that comes before a legislative body. They went on to say, "A part of this knowledge may be acquired by means of information which lie within the compass of men in private as well as public stations. Another part can only be attained, or at least thoroughly attained, by actual experience in the station which requires the use of it. The period of service, ought, therefore, in all such cases, to bear some proportion to the extent of practical knowledge requisite to the due performance of the service." So those who supported the Constitution felt that leislators could only acquire portions of their knowledge by experience. What knowledge must a Representative and Senator possess when it comes to foreign affairs?

The Federalist Papers state, "A branch of knowledge which belongs to the acquirements of a federal representative, and which has not been mentioned is that of foreign affairs. In regulating our own commerce he ought to be not only acquainted with the treaties between the United States and other nations, but also with the commercial policy and laws of other nations. He ought not to be altogether ignorant of the law of nations; for that, as far as it is a proper object of municipal legislation, is submitted to the federal government." Simply stated, our Senators and Representatives must possess a knowledge of foreign affairs. They went on to say, "And although the House of Representatives is not immediately to participate in foreign negotiations and arrangements, yet from the necessary connection between the several branches of public affairs, those particular branches will frequently deserve attention in the ordinary course of legislation, and will sometimes demand particular legislative sanction and co-operation." This statement alone should tell you what common sense and reason tells us. If someone is going to legislate regarding matters of foreign policy they must understand these things. They must posses a knowledge of our treaties, the laws of other nations but most importantly the "law of nations."

To be even more clear about what they felt and thought, "Some portion of this knowledge may, no doubt, be acquired in a man's closet; but some of it also can only be derived from the public sources of information; and all of it will be acquired to best effect by a practical attention to the subject during the period of actual service in the legislature." Nancy Pelosi wasn't acting as a negiotator for the United States when she visits foreign nations and speaks with their legislators and their officers of Government instead she is acting as a Representative of the 8th District of California and as Speaker of the House. She has the same right as every other legislator to have foreign policy discussions with the government of other nations. This is a given, if she is going to represent the people of her district in Congress when it comes to matters of foreign policy then she must be able to understand that policy.

But, let us now put this aside for a moment and ask ourselves why Nancy Pelosi would do what many others in the legislature would not. That is to explain why her actions may be more to the point with the leaders and representatives of the government of other nations and why she would choose to develop relationships with them. The answer to that is that Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House which means that she is second in line to become President of the United States. She will become President if Bush and Cheney were to become incapaciated or deceased. In our time, when terrorist attacks are becoming more frequent the President could be killed and the Vice President wounded so badly that Nancy Pelosi would become Acting President of the United States it is essential that she be able to be to call up the leader of a foreign nation and say "this is Nancy, I need your help." If the Vice President were to then die she would become the President of this country and she would not only need to possess a knowledge of foreign policy but she would have to set foreign policy in consultation with the Senate and furthermore, but less so, the House. This means she must possess a certain amount of knowledge and have a relationship with the leaders of other nations. This is simply common sense. A CEO is still a CEO in a company but those in line to succeed him in that office often develop relationships with business partners, and with other companies. This isn't any different from our Government.

 

[Edward]

You are of course aware that The Executive branch is solely charged with Foreign relations with the SENATE not the House task with agreeing or disagreeing? The Speaker has no authority and no mandate and no legal right to make deals, make promises or do anything more than gather information. She made specific statements as to her conducting foreign affairs in regards Israel and Syria.

This shows your ignorance of the Constitution, and of the debate surrounding the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. It was a given by those who supported the Constitution that the House would not conduct foreign affairs but it was also a given that they would be able to conduct discussions with and to then bring that information back to their counterparts in the House and Senate. I doubt very much that Nancy Pelosi signed any treaty or acted outside of her responsibilities as the Speaker of the House and if you can show where she did so and where her actions went beyond simply talking with the leaders of other nations to actually changing the policy of the U.S. in respect to any area then I would agree with you but she did no such thing and she did not act beyond her role as an individual, and as a legislator. If I wanted to talk to Ehud Olmert and he agreed then I have the right to do so as an individual, and if I want to talk foreign policy with him then I can do so if he agrees. If I were to then tell him that I would sign a treaty with him and not seek the approval of the President and the Senate I would be acting outside of my role as an American. If Nancy Pelosi did so then she would be acting outside of her role as Speaker, Representative and American

 

[Edward]

I think that Nancy Pelosi’s trip was a foolish and embarrassing waste of time. She was not in a position in which to conduct foreign policy. Yet, she was not secretive about it.

Of course she wasn't in a position to change our foreign policy or to conduct it but she was in a position to discuss many issues including foreign policy issues as the House is often required to act on matters of foreign policy. Not only that, but she is the Speaker of the House and must have a knowledge of these matters even more so then others because she could become the President of this country. She had every right to do what she did as do I even though I am not a Representative or the Speaker. She did what every American has the right to do. If she went beyond just talk to actually making treaties, and taking on the functions of the other branches of government than she would be just as wrong as if I were to take on the role of a member of our Government in a discussion I have with the people of other nations whether they were just citizens of those countries or whether they were members of the government of those countries.

 

[mattskramer]

Of course she wasn't in a position to change our foreign policy or to conduct it but she was in a position to discuss many issues including foreign policy issues as the House is often required to act on matters of foreign policy. Not only that, but she is the Speaker of the House and must have a knowledge of these matters even more so then others because she could become the President of this country. She had every right to do what she did as do I even though I am not a Representative or the Speaker. She did what every American has the right to do. If she went beyond just talk to actually making treaties, and taking on the functions of the other branches of government than she would be just as wrong as if I were to take on the role of a member of our Government in a discussion I have with the people of other nations whether they were just citizens of those countries or whether they were members of the government of those countries.

Sure. Did she go visit a neighbor? “How ya doin’ Ishmael? I really wish that you would try harder to get along with Isaac. Hey, Isaac. Try to visit with Ishmael.” If that is what it amounted to, I guess that I have no complaint.

If, on the other hand, she was trying to draw up a formal policy in which the USA is a participant or author, she was out of line.

 

[Edward]

Don’t you think that you are stretching it a bit? An official government document from a government agency is good enough for me. It is not like an anti-Bush smear blog posted it. What would be a good enough source? A letter signed by Cheney? What are you looking for?

Don't forget that RetiredGySgt thinks that the Director of the National Archives is a liar. Please note that in my statement about him thinking the Director of our National Archives is a liar that I did not include liar in quotations since that would indicate that I am quoting something he said or wrote which the Director of the National Archives did when he said that the OVP "does not consider itself an 'entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.' (emphasis added)"

If you were retarded like RetiredGySgt you may confuse my use of " and " and my use of ' and ' along with ( and ) and think that I am the one who added the emphasis to executive branch. You could spend all of your time trying to convince RetiredGySgt that the Director of National Archives was quoting the Office of the Vice President but he will not believe it. Now, it is possible that the Office of the Vice President did not consult with the Vice President before making this statement which would mean that the Vice President doesn't believe that the Office of the Vice President isn't an office in the executive branch but then that would mean that the Office has far to much authority of its own and isn't acting under the direction of the Vice President which I doubt, but if that is the case I will settle for the Vice President's Chief of Staff having said this which in my mind has the same affect as the Vice President deciding not to allow the National Archives to review the documents in his office because it isn't an "office of the executive branch."

 

[Edward]

Sure. Did she go visit a neighbor? “How ya doin’ Ishmael? I really wish that you would try harder to get along with Isaac. Hey, Isaac. Try to visit with Ishmael.” If that is what it amounted to, I guess that I have no complaint.

If, on the other hand, she was trying to draw up a formal policy in which the USA is a participant or author, she was out of line.

Actually, she wouldn't be out of line if she was trying to draw up a policy which the U.S. is a participant or author of as she would still not have been the one who signed it or ratified it which are CONSITUTIONAL FUNCTIONS she does no possess but on the other hand she can write whatever the hell she wants and talk to whomever she wants to talk to as an individual, as an American, as a Representative, and as Speaker of the House. But, when she has done that she can do no more instead the President would simply ignore here draft proposal, and the Senate would not ratify it. But if the President wanted to read her draft proposal, sign it, and then send it to the Senate to ratify then he can do exactly that and so can the Senate but that isn't what happened and she was not acting outside of her role as an individual, American, Representative or as Speaker. It is quite clear that she went there, spoke to some people, had some discussions, and then came back and did not exceed her authority by making official declarations for the Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch, or signing any treaties, or ratifying any treaties. She could have made as many official declarations of, "I Nancy this" or "I Nancy that..." and still been within her rights (i.e., freedom of speech)

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Cheney is: an alien from mars

But not with their approval. In fact, they specifically asked her not to go, as they did with the Republicans who had gone over on an earlier jaunt. The biggest difference is, the conservative pundits grabbed hold of the Pelosi trip for the obvious partisan reasons, that's why we all know about it.

 

[Edward]

A specific claim has been made, that Cheney or his Staff claim they are not part of the Executive branch. No one can actually provide ANY evidence at all any such claim was made. So yes, either a letter from Cheney, a memo or note. Or something directly from his Staff.

The evidence has been provided. When someone puts something in quotes it is because someone else said it word for word. You are an idiot because you cannot grasp the simple fact that the evidence is there and just because you do not want to read it or accept it doesn't mean that it isn't evidence. The evidence is in the letters that have been provided to us in PDF format and quoted and simply because it isn't sufficient for you doesn't mean that it isn't evidence. What will your next argument be, "if I don't personally see the documents in question then they aren't really evidence?"

It appears to me someone decided that meant he was not part of the Executive branch, BUT no one can provide a single source of where this claim comes from.

Try this link, http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070621094929.pdf Please take the time to note the use of quotations and the words "emphasis added". You don't add emphasis to your opinion and you do not place quotes around your own opinion instead you place quotes around the word to word statements of others and when you add emphasis to a certain part of it you add the following: (emphasis added). I suggest you take your retarded ass and go back to High School where they can teach you the use of the English language in written form.

Congress is unhapp-y with the Vice President, so what? Unless someone provides a specific charge that specifically violates the law , guess what? Cheney can ignore them as he pleases. Further in regards the Executive order, last i checked the President and Vice President meet occasionally, I wonder why it is, if Cheney is NOT exempt, the President has not told him to comply.

The President isn't the King and it isn't Congress that's asking for the access to the documents. It is an Executive agency that has the statutory authority given to it by Congress to review these documents. Also, Congress has the authority to make "all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." That does include the President, Vice President and their offices.

Ohh wait, I forgot, this week Chimpy is a retard being handled by Cheney. I am sure next week we will be back to he is an evil genius bent on usurping the Coun try and being dictator for life.

This week you are the retard because of what you have written. There is no basis to your argument. The executive agency asking for the access which they are being denied has the legal authority to review the documents in question. Congress and liberals are not making claims about what the Vice President or his staff has said, instead they are quoting word for word what someone else has quoted him as saying and that someone else is a member of the Executive Branch. It is obvious that you are

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This shows your ignorance of the Constitution, and of the debate surrounding the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. It was a given by those who supported the Constitution that the House would not conduct foreign affairs but it was also a given that they would be able to conduct discussions with and to then bring that information back to their counterparts in the House and Senate. I doubt very much that Nancy Pelosi signed any treaty or acted outside of her responsibilities as the Speaker of the House and if you can show where she did so and where her actions went beyond simply talking with the leaders of other nations to actually changing the policy of the U.S. in respect to any area then I would agree with you but she did no such thing and she did not act beyond her role as an individual, and as a legislator. If I wanted to talk to Ehud Olmert and he agreed then I have the right to do so as an individual, and if I want to talk foreign policy with him then I can do so if he agrees. If I were to then tell him that I would sign a treaty with him and not seek the approval of the President and the Senate I would be acting outside of my role as an American. If Nancy Pelosi did so then she would be acting outside of her role as Speaker, Representative and American

Lets review..... Edward lectures me on the Constitution while claiming that a majority voting in a representative, senator or President somehow violates his rights if that majority was not the one he supports....

 

[Truthmatters]

Face it RGS hes wiping the floor with your ass.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Face it RGS hes wiping the floor with your ass.

Only in your delusional world of " cause I said it, it is true"

There has been no source document provided yet. All we have is a third party claiming what was said. The only substantial first person claim is where Cheney's office rightfully indictated the Office of The Vice President is not the same as the other executive officers and that by the Constitution and law he has legislative position also.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Excuse me, since when is edward a constitutional scholar let alone anyone on this board.

Only in your delusional world of " cause I said it, it is true"

There has been no source document provided yet. All we have is a third party claiming what was said. The only substantial first person claim is where Cheney's office rightfully indictated the Office of The Vice President is not the same as the other executive officers and that by the Constitution and law he has legislative position also.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Good call. I remember Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, doing that. Good catch, man!


On "FOX News Sunday" today, Chris Wallace confronted Newt Gingrich with the statements he made in 1997 on a trip to China in which he directly contradicted President Clinton's policy regarding Taiwan. Newt Gingrich — along with the right-wing echo chamber and short-memoried MSM — spent the week condemning Speaker Pelosi for doing what Speaker Gingrich did just a decade before. Only then, Gingrich carried a message that was in stark contrast to US foreign policy; something that Nancy Pelosi didn't do, despite baseless right-wing accusations to the contrary.


Glenn Greenwald documents the original news accounts of Gingrich's trip at Salon. It should also be noted that Dennis Hastert traveled to Colombia in 1997 to undermine President Clinton's policy towards that country. He even went so far as to say that the Columbian government should bypass the excutive and deal directly with Congress.

Fox News video at http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/09/chris-wallace-exposes-newt-gingrichs-pelosi-hypocrisy/

And don't forget House Speaker Denny Hastert and his junket to Columbia where he told the Columbian government that they could deal with Congress, as Clinton was irrelevant.

<blockquote>&#8230;a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to &#8220;remove conditions on assistance&#8221; and complaining about &#8220;leftist-dominated&#8221; U.S. congresses of years past that &#8220;used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries.&#8221; Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to &#8220;bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.&#8221; - <a href=http://www.gwu.edu/&#37;7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB69/part3.html>The National Security Archive</a></blockquote>

The RWN's seem to forget that there are searchable records, documents, audio and video files, which recorded every hypocrisy of their talking heads and fearless leaders.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

im lost, when was columbia as scary as terrorists dictators?

And don't forget House Speaker Denny Hastert and his junket to Columbia where he told the Columbian government that they could deal with Congress, as Clinton was irrelevant.

<blockquote>…a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to “remove conditions on assistance” and complaining about “leftist-dominated” U.S. congresses of years past that “used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries.” Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.” - <a href=http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB69/part3.html>The National Security Archive</a></blockquote>

 

[Edward]

Lets review..... Edward lectures me on the Constitution while claiming that a majority voting in a representative, senator or President somehow violates his rights if that majority was not the one he supports....

Opposing the Constitution does not make me any less qualified to speak to its meaning anymore than you opposing the Communist Manifesto makes you any less qualified to speak to its meaning. There were many people at the time of the drafting of the Constitution who share my views and they had every right to speak to the Constitution and its meaning. My right to representation can not be voted away by the majority even if the majority thinks it can do so.

My statements have gone beyond simple majority voting in an official to actual representation or in other words, "I do not object to and have not objected to in this forum to the majority electing its representatives instead I have clearly stated that my objection is to a lack of representation in the process and not in the end result. I have said, I would not object to my family, my friends and my neighbors electing someone I personally know to represent them. I would simply smile, nod my head at my good friends and say, "maybe next time you will consider Susan from across the street to represent us and here is why..." Our system of government is not based on that concept. It is not based on a community of people acting together. I wouldn't care if my son's best friend's father was elected the representative of the hundred people in my neighborhood because I know him and if he begins to violate my rights, and I take issue with what he is doing I can walk over to his house, knock on his door and speak to him and his family at their dinner table and if he is really intent on ignoring me and violating my rights then I can take my family and go to the neighborhood meeting that week and openly state my concerns and if our family, friends and neighbors agree with me and feel that he was out of line then we can say to him, "we have chosen someone else now." (yes, by majority vote). I have never said I that a "majority voting in a representative violates rights" if the "majority wasn't the one I support." This is an outright lie, and fabrication of what I have said but there is no doubt that you are a liar. You may or may not hate the idea of representation and those like George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and all those who opposed the Constitution for the same reason I do but I am willing to stand my ground and to clearly state that IT IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN REPRESENTATION THAT I OPPOSE THE CONSTITUTION WHICH IS NOT DEMOCRATIC OR REPRESENTATIVE INSTEAD IT WAS MODELED AFTER THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAT THE UNITED STATES REBELLED AGAINST IN 1776.

 

[Edward]

Excuse me, since when is edward a constitutional scholar let alone anyone on this board.

Since I learned how to read and since I read it. The whole idea that someone has to be a constitutional scholar to speak to it or to its meaning is offensive and those who opposed it then opposed it for this very reason. That is that they opposed it because those who drafted it and supported it felt that they were better, or more superior to everyone else and that is why they felt the need for the Constitution. They feared the people, thinking of them as pond scum to be trodden under their feet. If you knew anything about the debates surrounding the ratification of the Constitution you would recognize that the people who opposed it were in effect being silenced, and when they did have the ability to succeed like in Rhode Island, they were push aside just like the people of Rhode Island were.When those who opposed the Constitution went to the conventions as delegates they were often not even allowed to include their comments and speeches on the Journals of the Conventions because those who supported the Constitution would not allow them to. No one ever wonders why those who wrote the Constitution met in secret and not in the public and the answer is that they felt they were better than the public and that they were wiser, more intelligent and did not answer to the people and that is the premise of the Constitution.

That said, I can speak to what I have read and I can do so as an individual just like those of you who think of yourself as scholars or as elites who sit on thrones over the rest of us. I on the other hand do not buy into the horseshit and I am willing to state the meaning of the constitution just like many of those who opposed it during the time of the ratification were willing to state its meaning. So, I became a Constitutional scholar the day I read it! That goes for anyone here... Your comments are nothing more than those of an idiot and they are simply offensive to anyone who understands the real meaning of self-government.

 

[CockySOB]

Since I learned how to read and since I read it. The whole idea that someone has to be a constitutional scholar to speak to it or to its meaning is offensive and those who opposed it then opposed it for this very reason. That is that they opposed it because those who drafted it and supported it felt that they were better, or more superior to everyone else and that is why they felt the need for the Constitution. They feared the people, thinking of them as pond scum to be trodden under their feet. If you knew anything about the debates surrounding the ratification of the Constitution you would recognize that the people who opposed it were in effect being silenced, and when they did have the ability to succeed like in Rhode Island, they were push aside just like the people of Rhode Island were.When those who opposed the Constitution went to the conventions as delegates they were often not even allowed to include their comments and speeches on the Journals of the Conventions because those who supported the Constitution would not allow them to. No one ever wonders why those who wrote the Constitution met in secret and not in the public and the answer is that they felt they were better than the public and that they were wiser, more intelligent and did not answer to the people and that is the premise of the Constitution.

That said, I can speak to what I have read and I can do so as an individual just like those of you who think of yourself as scholars or as elites who sit on thrones over the rest of us. I on the other hand do not buy into the horseshit and I am willing to state the meaning of the constitution just like many of those who opposed it during the time of the ratification were willing to state its meaning. So, I became a Constitutional scholar the day I read it! That goes for anyone here... Your comments are nothing more than those of an idiot and they are simply offensive to anyone who understands the real meaning of self-government.

Perhaps the single finest statement I have seen made on ANY of the boards I visit. We will probably continue to disagree on many topics (including some of your other conclusions in this post), but on this one, we are in total agreement. Kudos!

 

[Edward]

Perhaps the single finest statement I have seen made on ANY of the boards I visit. We will probably continue to disagree on many topics (including some of your other conclusions in this post), but on this one, we are in total agreement. Kudos!

You may believe whatever you want and are free to disagree with me. It is after all your fucking right to do so.Yet, there will come a day when the Constitution will be repealed and replaced with a Constitution that becomes a free people instead of a people enslaved to a system of government that is itself one of the most tyrannical the world has seen. We rebelled against it in 1776 and yet those who supported it re-instituted it in 1789. The first, was a great year for America and the second the worst. All those who had warned us of what would happen if we allowed, the tyrants who met in secret in Philadelphia to create the Constitution, to succeed then we would be doomed. Maybe I am far to much of a Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, John Lansing, Jr., Robert Yates, and William West to simply accept an oppresive document written by conniving men who sought after power and who met in secret to undo what was won in the American Revolution. This may offend some people who read what I have to say but simply looking at the history of the Constitution is enough to prove that most of what they had warned us about has come about. Now, the time may never come when the American people get enough backbone to demand a real government based on representation and democracy but I hope that day does come and that the Constitution as it now stands is abolished and a new one created. I may not live to see this day but I hope my children or grand children will be blessed to live in a free country, a land of liberty and a land of opportunity. That we can agree on the right of the people to read, and to understand the laws and Constitution of their government means you aren't as bad as some of the other idiots on here.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Edwards words....

Since I learned how to read and since I read it. The whole idea that someone has to be a constitutional scholar to speak to it or to its meaning is offensive and those who opposed it then opposed it for this very reason.

......

Fine sentiment, well except for the fact like all good liberals you only mean it to apply to YOU.