Forums | MacLife

Say goodnight.

I'd like to eat a caesar salad right about now.

Last edited by The-Cynic (2006-07-08 11:29 pm)

Don't you people know that Congressional and Judicial interference with the president caused Al Qaeda to stike on 11 September?

John Yoo wrote:

But here, unlike abortion, the Supreme Court does not have the last word. Congress and the president can enact a simple law putting the court back in its traditional place, allowing for the usual combination of presidential initiative and general congressional support. There is no other way to fight a successful war, as we learned Sept. 11.

yeah yeah, source

he's been banned already.

I didn't vote for him. I voted Nader.

KingFred wrote:

Now say Good Morning.

Now that the trouble is taken care of, let's try to keep the discussion going.

mission accomplished?

If you had actually read the "Blue Ribbon Task Force" recommendations you would have noticed that the corrective action is for Congress to pass new and specific legislation.

Congress does not have judicial review, as that would violate the very principal they are invoking.

How can Bush be "violating the Constitution" if the remedy is a suggestion to pass new laws - it would seem this is just more bellyaching over a strong Executive, "violating" a rule of law that does not yet exist?

So, the argument is that they are violating a law that does not exist, based upon an interpretation of the separation of powers.

And they claim this is about the importance of the rule of law?

pffft.

Interesting subject, though.

Last edited by gas huffer (2006-07-25 12:07 pm)

All the kewl kids are calling it: "Unilateral Executive".
It more clearly indicates the nature of the beast. Actions are based solely on no acknowledgement that the other branches share power OVER EACH OTHER. A unilateral move ignores the other two branches. Which is what we see in operation today. 'Extralegality' is defined by WH.

blank kludge wrote:

All the kewl kids are calling it: "Unilateral Executive".
It more clearly indicates the nature of the beast. Actions are based solely on no acknowledgement that the other branches share power OVER EACH OTHER. A unilateral move ignores the other two branches. Which is what we see in operation today. 'Extralegality' is defined by WH.

Which means the Executive Branch is acting in its own interest.  Which is what a branch in a system of separated and shared powers is expected to do and why we have a system of checks and balances in the first place.

The system is assumed to be in a constant state of disequilibria of factions seeking power, and not some utopian fairytale where we all hold hands all the time.

Last edited by gas huffer (2006-07-28 12:07 pm)

bratboy wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

The system is assumed to be in a constant state of disequilibria of factions seeking power, and not some utopian fairytale where we all hold hands all the time.

Yet when Congress attempts to reassert its authority over legislation, you throw a fit?

Yes, I am "throwing a fit" because the SCOTUS has stopped the President for Legislation that DOES NOT YET EXIST.

Is SCOTUS somehow an arm of the Legislature?  Did I say "the Legislature cannot create law"?

Or, is this one branch asking another to gain control over the Exectuve based on an Internatinal Treaty?  I don't like the Suprme Court sticking its nose in FOREIGN POLICY.  I like it limited to the CONSTITUTION.

Let me know when you actually can understand what that means, mmmmm'kay?

gas huffer wrote:

Let me know when you actually can understand what that means, mmmmm'kay?

Cut the crap, hear? Make your point in a civil tone sans this "sarcasm and satire" humor you seem to think you have.

I hope the request is clear and understood and won't need repeating.

Thank you and enjoy the space.

KF

Metacell wrote:

Aww, c'mon, he's just showing that he cares.
http://www.oldkewgardens.com/ps99/ps99-012-NS.jpg
About what, I have no idea.

KingFred wrote:

Cut the crap, hear? Make your point in a civil tone sans this "sarcasm and satire" humor you seem to think you have.

I hope the request is clear and understood and won't need repeating.

Thank you and enjoy the space.

KF

We might even make this a new rule stated in those exact terms.

I would suggest you not go down this road.