Metal Boss
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Howard Dean: The Gift That Keeps on Giving
- Thread starter PittsburghAfterDark
- Start date
Ace-Of-War
CAGiversary!
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You think they're the same thing?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='mykevermin']On the contrary, your citations (well documented, by the way) are The Federalist Papers. Documents that, written by some of our founding fathers and that do put forth a decent argument to what you are arguing, are not, to my knowledge, a part of what our government is beholden to. It is political philosophy, rather than a concrete piece of legislation (such as the constitution itself) to which people may feel amicable, but no legally precedented loyalty. Your argument for "constitutional authority" was supported only by documents that are not only not the constitution (though, admittedly, those that helped *frame* the constitution, but documents to which the United States is not obliged to obey. It's an olde tyme op-ed, in other words.[/quote]
Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were all founding fathers and the main authors of the Constitution, these papers were all arguments as to why we should even have a Constitutional government as opposed to one based on the Articles of Confederation. Without these papers, our Constitution quite probably would never have been written, much less passed. To say that the Federalist form of government that James Madison would write about was suddenly completely different in the shift from papers documenting the framework of the government and the Constitution itself seems like somewhat of a "last stand" argument. By that I mean you both seem to be grasping at straws here for anything that would make your point seem correct despite how farfetched your reasoning just for the sake of not being proven wrong.
Nevertheless, you still come to the conclusion that the legislative branch has the Constitutional authority to pass legislation to dictate the powers of the executive branch and I fail to see where you come up with it. I would ask that anyone of you provide me with evidence showing that the legislative branch in our form of government has that authority to not only make laws but to control exactly how they are enforced. If you cannot provide such evidence I would point out again that we are merely dealing with hypotheticals that don't pertain to the U.S. government in reality. If you would like to argue the benefits of a sole Republic then you are more than welcome to do so, but the people who wrote our Constitution had documented original intent that explain in full detail why an executive branch with massive authority is necessary in defense of our nation. If you'd like you can stand on that frail response that these Federalist Papers mean next to nothing, but I refuse to accept that the intent of the Constitution was any different simply because they choose not to make it several hundred pages long. I would assert that is is implied within Article II, and that the executive is the sole branch responsible for defending our state from our enemies and commanding our military and intelligence agencies.
No, see, I know you understand what I'm saying but you're refusing to let go of your understanding of this wiretapping program as one that is illegal. The difference between it and the Nixon example you alluded to was this: President Nixon was involved in eavesdropping and law breaking through means of listening to his political opponents instead of enemies of the entire United States. Another example, Attorney General Robert Kennedy under the leadership of former President John Kennedy was known to have wiretapped a United States citizen by the name of Martin Luther King Jr. Yet another example, former President Johnson and then FBI director J. Edgar Hoover often worked closely using eavesdropping tactics for LBJ's paranoid benefit. One of the most infamous of which was when LBJ order Hoover to wiretap Spiro Agnew's phone under flemsy evidence that he was talking to South Vietnamese leaders. Don't get me started on the flagrant disregard that FDR showed American civil liberties. I could go on and on with Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Eisenhower, but the point isn't to list prior offenses that cannot be changed, it's to try my hardest to explain to you that President Bush is not the first person to do this, and if anything he treats wiretapping with much more respect than almost any other President in the 20th century. It is nothing short of hypocritical to label President Bush as a law breaker and consequently punish him for such when this is the way our executive branch has carried about for a very long time.
I implore you to point out where legislative acts have the sole authority of defending this nation. I implore you to point out where you have gotten the idea that it is the legislative branch's responsibility to surpress the executive and take it upon themselves to defend this nation. Until you can do so, you simply can't make up this philosophy that our government is that of a pure republic where the executive has no real power to defend this nation.
[quote name='mykevermin']On the contrary, your citations (well documented, by the way) are The Federalist Papers. Documents that, written by some of our founding fathers and that do put forth a decent argument to what you are arguing, are not, to my knowledge, a part of what our government is beholden to. It is political philosophy, rather than a concrete piece of legislation (such as the constitution itself) to which people may feel amicable, but no legally precedented loyalty. Your argument for "constitutional authority" was supported only by documents that are not only not the constitution (though, admittedly, those that helped *frame* the constitution, but documents to which the United States is not obliged to obey. It's an olde tyme op-ed, in other words.[/quote]
Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were all founding fathers and the main authors of the Constitution, these papers were all arguments as to why we should even have a Constitutional government as opposed to one based on the Articles of Confederation. Without these papers, our Constitution quite probably would never have been written, much less passed. To say that the Federalist form of government that James Madison would write about was suddenly completely different in the shift from papers documenting the framework of the government and the Constitution itself seems like somewhat of a "last stand" argument. By that I mean you both seem to be grasping at straws here for anything that would make your point seem correct despite how farfetched your reasoning just for the sake of not being proven wrong.
Nevertheless, you still come to the conclusion that the legislative branch has the Constitutional authority to pass legislation to dictate the powers of the executive branch and I fail to see where you come up with it. I would ask that anyone of you provide me with evidence showing that the legislative branch in our form of government has that authority to not only make laws but to control exactly how they are enforced. If you cannot provide such evidence I would point out again that we are merely dealing with hypotheticals that don't pertain to the U.S. government in reality. If you would like to argue the benefits of a sole Republic then you are more than welcome to do so, but the people who wrote our Constitution had documented original intent that explain in full detail why an executive branch with massive authority is necessary in defense of our nation. If you'd like you can stand on that frail response that these Federalist Papers mean next to nothing, but I refuse to accept that the intent of the Constitution was any different simply because they choose not to make it several hundred pages long. I would assert that is is implied within Article II, and that the executive is the sole branch responsible for defending our state from our enemies and commanding our military and intelligence agencies.
No, see, I know you understand what I'm saying but you're refusing to let go of your understanding of this wiretapping program as one that is illegal. The difference between it and the Nixon example you alluded to was this: President Nixon was involved in eavesdropping and law breaking through means of listening to his political opponents instead of enemies of the entire United States. Another example, Attorney General Robert Kennedy under the leadership of former President John Kennedy was known to have wiretapped a United States citizen by the name of Martin Luther King Jr. Yet another example, former President Johnson and then FBI director J. Edgar Hoover often worked closely using eavesdropping tactics for LBJ's paranoid benefit. One of the most infamous of which was when LBJ order Hoover to wiretap Spiro Agnew's phone under flemsy evidence that he was talking to South Vietnamese leaders. Don't get me started on the flagrant disregard that FDR showed American civil liberties. I could go on and on with Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Eisenhower, but the point isn't to list prior offenses that cannot be changed, it's to try my hardest to explain to you that President Bush is not the first person to do this, and if anything he treats wiretapping with much more respect than almost any other President in the 20th century. It is nothing short of hypocritical to label President Bush as a law breaker and consequently punish him for such when this is the way our executive branch has carried about for a very long time.
I implore you to point out where legislative acts have the sole authority of defending this nation. I implore you to point out where you have gotten the idea that it is the legislative branch's responsibility to surpress the executive and take it upon themselves to defend this nation. Until you can do so, you simply can't make up this philosophy that our government is that of a pure republic where the executive has no real power to defend this nation.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Oy vey.
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth. I'm saying that The Federalist papers are the philosophy *behind* the Constitution, but they are *NOT* the constitution.
You're hurling a lot of accusations at me for someone who is using a set of documents with no legal weight whatsoever to support the notion of "constitutional authority." What gravitas do the Federalist Papers have that other philosophy does not? If someone violates the FP, will they be hauled into jail? If they pass a law that violates the FP, will the Supreme Court strike it down?
No. Only if it violates the constitution or the laws of the land; the federalist papers fall into neither of those categories.
What would Scalia think of you tarnishing the literalist legacy of the constitution!?!?!
Your framing of this as a "frail response" is a trite attempt to invalidate the argument that your assertions are resting on nothing more than philosophy. Maybe I'll slit my neighbor's throat and find something from Plato to back it up. That should hold up in court, right?
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth. I'm saying that The Federalist papers are the philosophy *behind* the Constitution, but they are *NOT* the constitution.
You're hurling a lot of accusations at me for someone who is using a set of documents with no legal weight whatsoever to support the notion of "constitutional authority." What gravitas do the Federalist Papers have that other philosophy does not? If someone violates the FP, will they be hauled into jail? If they pass a law that violates the FP, will the Supreme Court strike it down?
No. Only if it violates the constitution or the laws of the land; the federalist papers fall into neither of those categories.
What would Scalia think of you tarnishing the literalist legacy of the constitution!?!?!
Your framing of this as a "frail response" is a trite attempt to invalidate the argument that your assertions are resting on nothing more than philosophy. Maybe I'll slit my neighbor's throat and find something from Plato to back it up. That should hold up in court, right?
Ace-Of-War
CAGiversary!
I like how you conveniently dodge every other point I made and continue to pretend that the Federalist Papers had no influence on the Constitution whatsoever. It's like saying John Locke's ideas had no influence in the Declaration of Independence, you're making silly assumptions and grasping at straws because you do not want to be proven wrong.
Do you honestly believe that they left the Constitution as short as it is because they thought the Federalist Papers were trash philosophy? Let's get serious, I'm not pulling these ideas out of my ass, this is what the authors of the Constitution, our founding fathers, wanted our government to be shaped like. If you disagree that's fine. I'd be more than happy to argue over why you don't believe in a strong executive, but don't pretend like the executive all of a sudden got this tyrannical authority over the country the same day President Bush was elected.
Do you honestly believe that they left the Constitution as short as it is because they thought the Federalist Papers were trash philosophy? Let's get serious, I'm not pulling these ideas out of my ass, this is what the authors of the Constitution, our founding fathers, wanted our government to be shaped like. If you disagree that's fine. I'd be more than happy to argue over why you don't believe in a strong executive, but don't pretend like the executive all of a sudden got this tyrannical authority over the country the same day President Bush was elected.
Crazy the FISA court apparently did approve the Ames search, at least whats what following FISA is to my understanding.
Apples to Oranges anyway, not only is it concerning physical searches instead of electronic the man was not some random citizen but a CIA agent.
Apples to Oranges anyway, not only is it concerning physical searches instead of electronic the man was not some random citizen but a CIA agent.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Do you honestly believe that they left the Constitution as short as it is because they thought the Federalist Papers were trash philosophy?[/QUOTE]
Hey shitneck, you do realise there are the Anti-Federalist papers as well?
And that the fact is that founders could barely agree on which way is up?
They had many different view points, what is concerned is what made the cut the Constitution.
Hey shitneck, you do realise there are the Anti-Federalist papers as well?
And that the fact is that founders could barely agree on which way is up?
They had many different view points, what is concerned is what made the cut the Constitution.
Myke has a good point of the lack of legitimacy of the federalist papers in law. A more vigorous discussion should include the lengthy supreme court precedents as foundations for presidential authority. I think we can all agree that none of us are constiutional scholars and should let the Supreme court decide what executive actions have been taken in excess of their statuory authorization or perhaps may not even require stautory basis for execution.
Wherever the discussion leads, at least Mslut makes a good case for legalized abortion.
Wherever the discussion leads, at least Mslut makes a good case for legalized abortion.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I would love to cite for you the same quotations I have cited for mykevermin, but if you only look above your quote you will see that you are wrong.
I'll shorten a quote from Federalist Paper 70 for you though:[/quote]
Nothing you posted supports your position. I don't know how else to put it.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Again though, you are sadly mistaken if you believe that anyone would refer to a President of the United States as a dictator in any way shape or form. A popularly elected, term-restricted executive that can be voted out of office WILL NEVER be anywhere close to having the absolute power a dictator has. Unfortunately the propoganda the those on the left feed you (Howard Dean) would have you believe that President Bush would come kill and rape your wife if he had the chance. That is a low-point in American politics and the Democratic party, and I can only hope, preferably through my assistance, that you open your mind up to the reality that is President Bush just another President with his own ideology that you either support or you don't.
If you'd like to argue the Constitutionality of creating Japanese concentration camps and attempting to pack the Supreme Court so that it wouldn't ever be disloyal like FDR did, then you might have the makings of a valid argument.
[/quote]
The funniest thing about this whole argument is you are lumping me with the extreme left that is so common in this forum. Guess what, I'm not a Democrat and I think Howard Dean is an idiot. And I didn't suggest Bush is a dictator, although I know you love to put words in my mouth. I simply suggested that under your interpretation of the Constitution he would be, or at least close to it, since under your interpretation he can just ignore laws whenever he wants.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I hope I am wrong in that assumption, and I hope you are just committed as I am in recognizing Islamo-fascism as the evil that it is. [/quote]
Why are you assuming at all? Surely you read what I already wrote out twice.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']It's an unnecessary mingling of the branches that need not be respected should national security be a more pressing issue at the time.
As I've said a number of times, if you'd prefer the legislative branch have the real say in defending this nation and enforcing our laws then you would certainly be an advocate for a pure Republic. As our government currently stands the legislative branch does not have the authority to circumvent the executive's Constitutional authority with any act passed by any party. It's like saying that if Congress should pass a law that says all Presidental appointments to federal courts must be split as to where the legislative branch makes 50% of the appointments and the executive branch makes 50% of the appointments. It's completely going over our Constitution into a territory that it cannot be. I've already told you the powers the legislative branch has in preventing the President from exercising powers, but tearing out a piece of the Constitution is not one of them (notwithstanding Constitutional Amendments.)[/QUOTE]
Again you try and justify your position that the president is above the law. He is not, never was, and hopefully never will be. That is the main reason it was so sad to see Clinton not convicted in the Senate, because these kinds of ideas of "executive privilege" have become all too common. Quite frankly, these sorts of ideas that one man has the power to circumvent all laws on his own say so with no check other than impeachment are dangerous ones that I hope never become widely accepted.
I'll shorten a quote from Federalist Paper 70 for you though:[/quote]
Nothing you posted supports your position. I don't know how else to put it.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Again though, you are sadly mistaken if you believe that anyone would refer to a President of the United States as a dictator in any way shape or form. A popularly elected, term-restricted executive that can be voted out of office WILL NEVER be anywhere close to having the absolute power a dictator has. Unfortunately the propoganda the those on the left feed you (Howard Dean) would have you believe that President Bush would come kill and rape your wife if he had the chance. That is a low-point in American politics and the Democratic party, and I can only hope, preferably through my assistance, that you open your mind up to the reality that is President Bush just another President with his own ideology that you either support or you don't.
If you'd like to argue the Constitutionality of creating Japanese concentration camps and attempting to pack the Supreme Court so that it wouldn't ever be disloyal like FDR did, then you might have the makings of a valid argument.
[/quote]The funniest thing about this whole argument is you are lumping me with the extreme left that is so common in this forum. Guess what, I'm not a Democrat and I think Howard Dean is an idiot. And I didn't suggest Bush is a dictator, although I know you love to put words in my mouth. I simply suggested that under your interpretation of the Constitution he would be, or at least close to it, since under your interpretation he can just ignore laws whenever he wants.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I hope I am wrong in that assumption, and I hope you are just committed as I am in recognizing Islamo-fascism as the evil that it is. [/quote]
Why are you assuming at all? Surely you read what I already wrote out twice.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']It's an unnecessary mingling of the branches that need not be respected should national security be a more pressing issue at the time.
As I've said a number of times, if you'd prefer the legislative branch have the real say in defending this nation and enforcing our laws then you would certainly be an advocate for a pure Republic. As our government currently stands the legislative branch does not have the authority to circumvent the executive's Constitutional authority with any act passed by any party. It's like saying that if Congress should pass a law that says all Presidental appointments to federal courts must be split as to where the legislative branch makes 50% of the appointments and the executive branch makes 50% of the appointments. It's completely going over our Constitution into a territory that it cannot be. I've already told you the powers the legislative branch has in preventing the President from exercising powers, but tearing out a piece of the Constitution is not one of them (notwithstanding Constitutional Amendments.)[/QUOTE]
Again you try and justify your position that the president is above the law. He is not, never was, and hopefully never will be. That is the main reason it was so sad to see Clinton not convicted in the Senate, because these kinds of ideas of "executive privilege" have become all too common. Quite frankly, these sorts of ideas that one man has the power to circumvent all laws on his own say so with no check other than impeachment are dangerous ones that I hope never become widely accepted.
Ace-Of-War
CAGiversary!
[quote name='bmulligan']A more vigorous discussion should include the lengthy supreme court precedents as foundations for presidential authority. I think we can all agree that none of us are constiutional scholars and should let the Supreme court decide what executive actions have been taken in excess of their statuory authorization or perhaps may not even require stautory basis for execution.[/quote]
Well I tried to explain that although the Supreme Court has yet to really decide upon the legality of the wiretapping, but the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuit Court's have all ruled in favor of the government when unwarranted wiretapping for purposes of foreign intelligence was a factor. That was kinda looked over though, as I suppose those that disagree with me just don't really want to know that Federal court precedent is not in their favor either. And they accuse me of not reading what they have to say...
[quote name='Me on Page 3']The Fifth, Third, Ninth, Fourth, and Second Circuit Courts have all had rulings providing exceptions for electronic surveillance when it comes to requiring a warrant.[/QUOTE]
The only reason we got into the argument about the Federalist Papers was because I was trying to explain the framers intent for the executive branch. I know these papers aren't legal documents, but to call them meaningless is ignorant. These papers are the backbone to our Federalist system of government, what was the point of writing them if they meant nothing?
[quote name='elprincipe']The funniest thing about this whole argument is you are lumping me with the extreme left that is so common in this forum. Guess what, I'm not a Democrat and I think Howard Dean is an idiot. And I didn't suggest Bush is a dictator, although I know you love to put words in my mouth. I simply suggested that under your interpretation of the Constitution he would be, or at least close to it, since under your interpretation he can just ignore laws whenever he wants.[/quote]
You say you never suggested that President Bush was a dictator but look at what you wrote just after this paragraph:
Someone who is above the law would certainly qualify as a dictator of sorts. In other words, you're assuming that I advocate these things, that the President should be above the law, when I did nothing of the sort. I mean, we're going through the same arguments here. I guess I just have to give a lesson in Civics 101 here.
In our system of government, the legislative branch has the role of making laws. They make laws that we must abide by because they are elected representatives of the people, hence the term republic. The legislative also has the role of deciding what funds go where, which is quite a substansial power to have in government. Only they may authorize how much U.S. money will be going to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina or Southeast Asia after that big earthquake. The bottom line is that they are responsible for making and determining policy in our country. The executive branch has the role of enforcing these laws. Other than the President, agencies like the FBI, CIA, and NSA also exist under the executive branch. The President serves also as the Commander-in-Chief who is responsible for directing and dispatching soldiers in our military at his own disgression. He may or may not choose to follow the advice of military leaders in these decisions since his leadership role as the elected leader of our nation is above any other position in our government. As the legislative branch acts to help our nation continue to grow and prosper with the times, the executive branch acts to defend this ability to grow and defend our nation from harm. Especially during war, the President has an increased responsibility as the popularly elected, term-restricted leader of our nation to use whatever tools he has available to protect us from harm. Finally, the judicial branch acts as a sort of referee for the whole time. The judicial branch oversees both other branches to make sure they are staying within their respective limitations and not going against the Constitution. The judicial branch interprets the laws that come before them to make sure they are just and in accordance with the laws of the land. The judicial branch holds the power of judicial review of the actions of the executive, and show something they do go out of bounds Constitutionally, they have the ability to stop the President's actions. The judicial branch also has the authority to declare any law passed by the Congress Unconstitutional and void it. The legislative branch has the ability to confirm judges for the judicial branch, they cannot be judges or justices if they do not make enough votes in Congress. Over the executive branch, the legislative branch has the authority to impeach officials should they commit a crime. They also have the "power of the purse" meaning they can decide how all of the taxpayer's money will be spent. Only the legislative is allowed to makes bills into law, not the executive. The checks that the executive has over the legislative branch is that the executive may veto laws that the legislative brings before him. The executive also has the sole ability to nominate federal judges and cabinet members. All of this works together in what we call the seperation of powers, it is to keep one branch from usurping all of the abilites of the other two and having too much power over the union. The legislative branch makes the laws, but they cannot arrest or detain those who break the laws and they cannot try them to decide their guilt. The executive branch enforces the laws, but they cannot make up what laws they want to enforce and they cannot decide if who they went after is indeed guilty or not. The judicial branch interprets the laws, but they cannot make up the laws they want to interpret and they cannot arrest or detain those who they believe broke the law.
In a nutshell, that's the way the U.S. government works, and I don't advocate anything outside those guidelines. Unfortunately someone has gotten into your head that what President Bush is doing is against these rules, yet you refuse to tell me how he has broken the boundaries set to his office. Either that or you're interpretation of how our government works is different from mine, which is a different argument altogether as I have said over and over again. Everyone seems to advocate that the legislative branch be responsible for all of the government's powers, but I don't understand why someone would support a purely republican system like that. Everytime I ask someone to shine light on why that is they start taking offense and yelling at me for misinterpreting them or whatever.
Well I tried to explain that although the Supreme Court has yet to really decide upon the legality of the wiretapping, but the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuit Court's have all ruled in favor of the government when unwarranted wiretapping for purposes of foreign intelligence was a factor. That was kinda looked over though, as I suppose those that disagree with me just don't really want to know that Federal court precedent is not in their favor either. And they accuse me of not reading what they have to say...
[quote name='Me on Page 3']The Fifth, Third, Ninth, Fourth, and Second Circuit Courts have all had rulings providing exceptions for electronic surveillance when it comes to requiring a warrant.[/QUOTE]
The only reason we got into the argument about the Federalist Papers was because I was trying to explain the framers intent for the executive branch. I know these papers aren't legal documents, but to call them meaningless is ignorant. These papers are the backbone to our Federalist system of government, what was the point of writing them if they meant nothing?
[quote name='elprincipe']The funniest thing about this whole argument is you are lumping me with the extreme left that is so common in this forum. Guess what, I'm not a Democrat and I think Howard Dean is an idiot. And I didn't suggest Bush is a dictator, although I know you love to put words in my mouth. I simply suggested that under your interpretation of the Constitution he would be, or at least close to it, since under your interpretation he can just ignore laws whenever he wants.[/quote]
You say you never suggested that President Bush was a dictator but look at what you wrote just after this paragraph:
Someone who is above the law would certainly qualify as a dictator of sorts. In other words, you're assuming that I advocate these things, that the President should be above the law, when I did nothing of the sort. I mean, we're going through the same arguments here. I guess I just have to give a lesson in Civics 101 here.
In our system of government, the legislative branch has the role of making laws. They make laws that we must abide by because they are elected representatives of the people, hence the term republic. The legislative also has the role of deciding what funds go where, which is quite a substansial power to have in government. Only they may authorize how much U.S. money will be going to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina or Southeast Asia after that big earthquake. The bottom line is that they are responsible for making and determining policy in our country. The executive branch has the role of enforcing these laws. Other than the President, agencies like the FBI, CIA, and NSA also exist under the executive branch. The President serves also as the Commander-in-Chief who is responsible for directing and dispatching soldiers in our military at his own disgression. He may or may not choose to follow the advice of military leaders in these decisions since his leadership role as the elected leader of our nation is above any other position in our government. As the legislative branch acts to help our nation continue to grow and prosper with the times, the executive branch acts to defend this ability to grow and defend our nation from harm. Especially during war, the President has an increased responsibility as the popularly elected, term-restricted leader of our nation to use whatever tools he has available to protect us from harm. Finally, the judicial branch acts as a sort of referee for the whole time. The judicial branch oversees both other branches to make sure they are staying within their respective limitations and not going against the Constitution. The judicial branch interprets the laws that come before them to make sure they are just and in accordance with the laws of the land. The judicial branch holds the power of judicial review of the actions of the executive, and show something they do go out of bounds Constitutionally, they have the ability to stop the President's actions. The judicial branch also has the authority to declare any law passed by the Congress Unconstitutional and void it. The legislative branch has the ability to confirm judges for the judicial branch, they cannot be judges or justices if they do not make enough votes in Congress. Over the executive branch, the legislative branch has the authority to impeach officials should they commit a crime. They also have the "power of the purse" meaning they can decide how all of the taxpayer's money will be spent. Only the legislative is allowed to makes bills into law, not the executive. The checks that the executive has over the legislative branch is that the executive may veto laws that the legislative brings before him. The executive also has the sole ability to nominate federal judges and cabinet members. All of this works together in what we call the seperation of powers, it is to keep one branch from usurping all of the abilites of the other two and having too much power over the union. The legislative branch makes the laws, but they cannot arrest or detain those who break the laws and they cannot try them to decide their guilt. The executive branch enforces the laws, but they cannot make up what laws they want to enforce and they cannot decide if who they went after is indeed guilty or not. The judicial branch interprets the laws, but they cannot make up the laws they want to interpret and they cannot arrest or detain those who they believe broke the law.
In a nutshell, that's the way the U.S. government works, and I don't advocate anything outside those guidelines. Unfortunately someone has gotten into your head that what President Bush is doing is against these rules, yet you refuse to tell me how he has broken the boundaries set to his office. Either that or you're interpretation of how our government works is different from mine, which is a different argument altogether as I have said over and over again. Everyone seems to advocate that the legislative branch be responsible for all of the government's powers, but I don't understand why someone would support a purely republican system like that. Everytime I ask someone to shine light on why that is they start taking offense and yelling at me for misinterpreting them or whatever.
Ace continues to respond without saying or responding to any points.
FISA is pretty easy going getting warrants they have only denied a small percentage of what was asked, they also allow a a warrant to be gotten 3 days after the fact.
Were you even aware of those facts?
FISA is pretty easy going getting warrants they have only denied a small percentage of what was asked, they also allow a a warrant to be gotten 3 days after the fact.
Were you even aware of those facts?
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
Ace, I don't know what to say, you just lack any reading comprehension skills. I didn't say Bush was a dictator, just that under your interpretation of the Constitution he would be, since your interpretation is that the president can ignore laws passed by Congress. Fortunately, your interpretation is dead wrong and I don't see it being accepted widely any time soon.
I see you are also unable to respond to the fact that the things you cite in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers (which are not, as has already been noted, the law) do nothing to support your position. You cite passages that argue that the executive branch must be strong and the president must defend the Constitution of the United States. That has nothing to do with this argument, but evidently to you it does because you apparently believe defending the Constitution of the United States means violating it.
I see you are also unable to respond to the fact that the things you cite in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers (which are not, as has already been noted, the law) do nothing to support your position. You cite passages that argue that the executive branch must be strong and the president must defend the Constitution of the United States. That has nothing to do with this argument, but evidently to you it does because you apparently believe defending the Constitution of the United States means violating it.
Ace-Of-War
CAGiversary!
I'm trying to be fair with you because you seem like a rational fellow, but now you're just trying to twist my words and continually insult my intelligence.
[quote name='elprincipe']Fortunately, your interpretation is dead wrong and I don't see it being accepted widely any time soon.[/quote]
[quote name='Me']In other words, you're assuming that I advocate these things, that the President should be above the law, when I did nothing of the sort.[/quote]
[quote name='Me']In other words, you're assuming that I advocate these things, that the President should be above the law, when I did nothing of the sort.[/quote]
[quote name='Me']In other words, you're assuming that I advocate these things, that the President should be above the law, when I did nothing of the sort.[/quote]
Alright, do you got that now? Are you still going to make false accusations or do you understand now? I'm not advocating that the law be broken, but Constitutional authority is superior to FISA restrictions.
That has everything to do with the argument, because that's exactly the point. The public isn't as dumb as you would think, they won't elect a manical power-hungry warlord. Should that happen and should the President overstep his boundries then the legislative branch and the judicial branch have the authority to get him out of office. If you take one thing out of everything I've said in this entire thread take this: You simply can't make up this philosophy that our government is that of a pure republic where the executive has no real power to defend this nation. The President gets his power from the people who elected him, not from the legislative branch.
[quote name='elprincipe']Fortunately, your interpretation is dead wrong and I don't see it being accepted widely any time soon.[/quote]
[quote name='Me']In other words, you're assuming that I advocate these things, that the President should be above the law, when I did nothing of the sort.[/quote]
[quote name='Me']In other words, you're assuming that I advocate these things, that the President should be above the law, when I did nothing of the sort.[/quote]
[quote name='Me']In other words, you're assuming that I advocate these things, that the President should be above the law, when I did nothing of the sort.[/quote]
Alright, do you got that now? Are you still going to make false accusations or do you understand now? I'm not advocating that the law be broken, but Constitutional authority is superior to FISA restrictions.
That has everything to do with the argument, because that's exactly the point. The public isn't as dumb as you would think, they won't elect a manical power-hungry warlord. Should that happen and should the President overstep his boundries then the legislative branch and the judicial branch have the authority to get him out of office. If you take one thing out of everything I've said in this entire thread take this: You simply can't make up this philosophy that our government is that of a pure republic where the executive has no real power to defend this nation. The President gets his power from the people who elected him, not from the legislative branch.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Alright, do you got that now? Are you still going to make false accusations or do you understand now? I'm not advocating that the law be broken, but Constitutional authority is superior to FISA restrictions.[/quote]
Yes, I did see that you say you don't advocate the law being broken. Then you go and contradict that in the next sentence, or even in the same sentence, by claiming a mystical "constitutional authority" for the president that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. If you have anything relevant to post on that (what you have already is not) that would be interesting. However, you don't because there is nothing there to indicate that your interpretation is correct.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']That has everything to do with the argument, because that's exactly the point. The public isn't as dumb as you would think, they won't elect a manical power-hungry warlord. Should that happen and should the President overstep his boundries then the legislative branch and the judicial branch have the authority to get him out of office. If you take one thing out of everything I've said in this entire thread take this: You simply can't make up this philosophy that our government is that of a pure republic where the executive has no real power to defend this nation. The President gets his power from the people who elected him, not from the legislative branch.[/QUOTE]
The president gets his power from being the duly elected president under the Constitution. In your world, the only check Congress has on the president is by impeaching him. In reality, the president's duty is to enforce the laws passed by Congress, not circumvent them or decide unilaterally he wants the law to be different so he just won't follow the current one. Here you go:
[quote name='U.S. Constitution']Article I Section 8
The Congress shall have Power ...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; ...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; ...
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; ...
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.
[/quote]
[quote name='U.S. Constitution']Article II Section 3
[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed[/quote]
Yes, I did see that you say you don't advocate the law being broken. Then you go and contradict that in the next sentence, or even in the same sentence, by claiming a mystical "constitutional authority" for the president that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. If you have anything relevant to post on that (what you have already is not) that would be interesting. However, you don't because there is nothing there to indicate that your interpretation is correct.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']That has everything to do with the argument, because that's exactly the point. The public isn't as dumb as you would think, they won't elect a manical power-hungry warlord. Should that happen and should the President overstep his boundries then the legislative branch and the judicial branch have the authority to get him out of office. If you take one thing out of everything I've said in this entire thread take this: You simply can't make up this philosophy that our government is that of a pure republic where the executive has no real power to defend this nation. The President gets his power from the people who elected him, not from the legislative branch.[/QUOTE]
The president gets his power from being the duly elected president under the Constitution. In your world, the only check Congress has on the president is by impeaching him. In reality, the president's duty is to enforce the laws passed by Congress, not circumvent them or decide unilaterally he wants the law to be different so he just won't follow the current one. Here you go:
[quote name='U.S. Constitution']Article I Section 8
The Congress shall have Power ...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; ...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; ...
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; ...
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.
[/quote]
[quote name='U.S. Constitution']Article II Section 3
[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed[/quote]
Ace-Of-War
CAGiversary!
[quote name='elprincipe']claiming a mystical "constitutional authority" for the president[/quote]
[quote name='Griffin Bell, Attorney General to Jimmy Carter, during a Congressional hearing said that:']FISA does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution.[/quote]
[quote name='Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General to Bill Clinton, during a Congressional hearing said that:']The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general[/quote]
[quote name='Case Number: 02-001. FISA Court of Review, 2002 (Truong v. U.S.):']The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.[/quote]
[quote name='United States v. (Cassius) Clay (5th Cir. 1970):']Section 605 of Title 47, U.S.C., is a general prohibition against publication or use of communications obtained by wiretapping, but we do not read the section as forbidding the President, or his representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence in the national interest.[/quote]
[quote name='United States v. Butenko (3rd Cir. 1974):']In sum, we hold that, in the circumstances of this case, prior judicial authorization was not required since the district court found that the surveillances of Ivanov were “conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information.”[/quote]
[quote name='United States v. Truong (4th Cir. 1980):']For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], “unduly frustrate” the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations.[/quote]
[quote name='United States v. Duggan (2nd Cir. 1984):']Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.[/quote]
How about almost every Federal Circuit Court, two Attorney Generals, and the FISA review court itself?
Now I know you're just skipping everything I said to be a real jackass. I've went over and over the numerous checks the branchs have on each other for your benefit because I thought you'd be a little hazy on what seperation of powers is. I don't even have to write anything new anymore because I've answered all of this before.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War'] The checks on the executive branch are as follows: The legislative branch may decide to override a Presidental veto, impeach, approve Presidental appointments, or cut funding, and the judicial branch has the power of judicial review to rule actions as Unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]
Quit making shit up that I didn't say, I'm tired of it. I recognize the checks the Constitution allows the legislative on the executive, you're the one who's making them up. You're welcome to scan the Constitution for FISA if you'd like, you won't find it. Do you know why? It isn't a Constitutional check, it's an act passed by Congress.
[quote name='Griffin Bell, Attorney General to Jimmy Carter, during a Congressional hearing said that:']FISA does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution.[/quote]
[quote name='Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General to Bill Clinton, during a Congressional hearing said that:']The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general[/quote]
[quote name='Case Number: 02-001. FISA Court of Review, 2002 (Truong v. U.S.):']The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.[/quote]
[quote name='United States v. (Cassius) Clay (5th Cir. 1970):']Section 605 of Title 47, U.S.C., is a general prohibition against publication or use of communications obtained by wiretapping, but we do not read the section as forbidding the President, or his representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence in the national interest.[/quote]
[quote name='United States v. Butenko (3rd Cir. 1974):']In sum, we hold that, in the circumstances of this case, prior judicial authorization was not required since the district court found that the surveillances of Ivanov were “conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information.”[/quote]
[quote name='United States v. Truong (4th Cir. 1980):']For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], “unduly frustrate” the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations.[/quote]
[quote name='United States v. Duggan (2nd Cir. 1984):']Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.[/quote]
How about almost every Federal Circuit Court, two Attorney Generals, and the FISA review court itself?
Now I know you're just skipping everything I said to be a real jackass. I've went over and over the numerous checks the branchs have on each other for your benefit because I thought you'd be a little hazy on what seperation of powers is. I don't even have to write anything new anymore because I've answered all of this before.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War'] The checks on the executive branch are as follows: The legislative branch may decide to override a Presidental veto, impeach, approve Presidental appointments, or cut funding, and the judicial branch has the power of judicial review to rule actions as Unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]
Quit making shit up that I didn't say, I'm tired of it. I recognize the checks the Constitution allows the legislative on the executive, you're the one who's making them up. You're welcome to scan the Constitution for FISA if you'd like, you won't find it. Do you know why? It isn't a Constitutional check, it's an act passed by Congress.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
Firstly, there is a common theme in all the cases you cite: FOREIGN intelligence. We are back to the beginning of the circle again with me pointing out to you this IS NOT FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE since it involves wiretapping AMERICANS. I don't know why you keep trying to cite things that don't have anything to do with our argument to support your points. Either give me something relevant or there is nothing more to talk about.
And your definition of separation of powers does not include what I cited in the Constitution. The Constitution clearly states, as I already cited, that Congress has the power to make laws in this area, and as with any other laws the president's constitutional responsibility is to enforce them. I don't need a list typed by you to define the powers of the branches of our government; I'll just read the Constitution...and I've already cited relevant parts of it to you to which you've failed to respond.
And your definition of separation of powers does not include what I cited in the Constitution. The Constitution clearly states, as I already cited, that Congress has the power to make laws in this area, and as with any other laws the president's constitutional responsibility is to enforce them. I don't need a list typed by you to define the powers of the branches of our government; I'll just read the Constitution...and I've already cited relevant parts of it to you to which you've failed to respond.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']Ace trying to insult your intelligence would be like spitting on a pile of shit, why bother?[/QUOTE]
Real mature.
[quote name='Msut77']The public at least according to poll numbers doesnt support W having searches conducted without a warrant.[/QUOTE]
What the public wants or doesn't currently want has nothing to do with what the law is currently. The only thing that shows is that if the courts somehow hold Bush has the power to do what he is doing legally, that most people would support passing a law to prevent him from doing it. But then again, in Ace's la-la land of the president not being bound by laws passed by Congress (unless they are constitutional amendments) it wouldn't make a difference.
Real mature.
[quote name='Msut77']The public at least according to poll numbers doesnt support W having searches conducted without a warrant.[/QUOTE]
What the public wants or doesn't currently want has nothing to do with what the law is currently. The only thing that shows is that if the courts somehow hold Bush has the power to do what he is doing legally, that most people would support passing a law to prevent him from doing it. But then again, in Ace's la-la land of the president not being bound by laws passed by Congress (unless they are constitutional amendments) it wouldn't make a difference.
[quote name='Msut77']No shit. I was merely responding to one of Aces newest "arguments".[/QUOTE]
Yes, you are a terrific responder. Like a nervous reaction to stimulus, the involuntary mechanisms of your brain work perfectly like a hand jerk from a lit stove. Unfortunately, the areas of higher rational and abstract thought do not appear to be functioning at all.
Yes, you are a terrific responder. Like a nervous reaction to stimulus, the involuntary mechanisms of your brain work perfectly like a hand jerk from a lit stove. Unfortunately, the areas of higher rational and abstract thought do not appear to be functioning at all.
Why does Bmullet think he is smart?
How could he ever come to such an erroneous conclusion?
My theory is that in his special ed class he learned to tie his shoes at age 9 while it took the others until age 10, therefore giving him an overinflated sense of his own intelligence.
How could he ever come to such an erroneous conclusion?
My theory is that in his special ed class he learned to tie his shoes at age 9 while it took the others until age 10, therefore giving him an overinflated sense of his own intelligence.
Ace-Of-War
CAGiversary!
[quote name='elprincipe']Firstly, there is a common theme in all the cases you cite: FOREIGN intelligence. We are back to the beginning of the circle again with me pointing out to you this IS NOT FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE since it involves wiretapping AMERICANS. I don't know why you keep trying to cite things that don't have anything to do with our argument to support your points. Either give me something relevant or there is nothing more to talk about.[/quote]
Pick a case and look into it my friend, they all have to do with the government wiretapping domestically for the sake of national security (or foreign intelligence if you'd prefer) meaning they're all on topic.
For instance, in United States v. Truong, the case involves a defendant, Hung Truong, a Vietnamese citizen living in the United States, he was allegedly sending classified information to a Vietnamese Ambassador outside of the United States. He was wiretapped by the federal government, which obviously led to the case itself, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the government was not required to retrieve a warrant for the wiretap on his phone.
I can go in depth on any of them if you'd like, but they all say essentially the same thing: The executive branch is not required to collect a warrant for domestic wiretapping when foreign security plays as the primary reason for the wiretap itself. The President has the inherent authority to protect the United States, and the FISA cannot stop him for doing so.
What do you want me to respond to? Congress makes laws, President enforces them. That's only what I've been saying for... oh... four pages!
You insist that it's the job of the legislative branch to enforce the laws as well. Why?
Pick a case and look into it my friend, they all have to do with the government wiretapping domestically for the sake of national security (or foreign intelligence if you'd prefer) meaning they're all on topic.
For instance, in United States v. Truong, the case involves a defendant, Hung Truong, a Vietnamese citizen living in the United States, he was allegedly sending classified information to a Vietnamese Ambassador outside of the United States. He was wiretapped by the federal government, which obviously led to the case itself, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the government was not required to retrieve a warrant for the wiretap on his phone.
I can go in depth on any of them if you'd like, but they all say essentially the same thing: The executive branch is not required to collect a warrant for domestic wiretapping when foreign security plays as the primary reason for the wiretap itself. The President has the inherent authority to protect the United States, and the FISA cannot stop him for doing so.
What do you want me to respond to? Congress makes laws, President enforces them. That's only what I've been saying for... oh... four pages!
You insist that it's the job of the legislative branch to enforce the laws as well. Why?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
If you're so certain of the validity of your court claims, Ace, then I suspect you have evidence of such courts' decisions involving United States citizens, not merely foreign citizens residing in the states?
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I can go in depth on any of them if you'd like, but they all say essentially the same thing: The executive branch is not required to collect a warrant for domestic wiretapping when foreign security plays as the primary reason for the wiretap itself. The President has the inherent authority to protect the United States, and the FISA cannot stop him for doing so.[/quote]
But with the current NSA program we're talking about American citizens, not agents of other governments or even citizens of other countries. And guess what? In the current conflict, the executive branch has conveniently defined the war zone as the entire world and the time as never-ending.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']What do you want me to respond to? Congress makes laws, President enforces them. That's only what I've been saying for... oh... four pages!
You insist that it's the job of the legislative branch to enforce the laws as well. Why?[/QUOTE]
Wrong way around, buddy. You keep insisting that the president can ignore the laws the legislative branch makes whenever he wants. Show me one place where I ever claimed the legislative branch should enforce laws.
What I wanted you to respond to is the plain wording of the Constitution, which clearly gives Congress the power to make laws in this area, which the president is then clearly obligated to enforce. Why do you deny Congress has any power to make a law in this area when the Constitution clearly says it has that power?
But with the current NSA program we're talking about American citizens, not agents of other governments or even citizens of other countries. And guess what? In the current conflict, the executive branch has conveniently defined the war zone as the entire world and the time as never-ending.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']What do you want me to respond to? Congress makes laws, President enforces them. That's only what I've been saying for... oh... four pages!
You insist that it's the job of the legislative branch to enforce the laws as well. Why?[/QUOTE]
Wrong way around, buddy. You keep insisting that the president can ignore the laws the legislative branch makes whenever he wants. Show me one place where I ever claimed the legislative branch should enforce laws.
What I wanted you to respond to is the plain wording of the Constitution, which clearly gives Congress the power to make laws in this area, which the president is then clearly obligated to enforce. Why do you deny Congress has any power to make a law in this area when the Constitution clearly says it has that power?
Ace-Of-War
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']If you're so certain of the validity of your court claims, Ace, then I suspect you have evidence of such courts' decisions involving United States citizens, not merely foreign citizens residing in the states?[/quote]
Don't need any, not when federal court precedent provides for executive power in this instance above the Fourth Amendment without question. It applies to everyone, no matter their race, color, creed, religion... etc. It just doesn't conflict, end of discussion.
[quote name='elprincipe']Wrong way around, buddy. You keep insisting that the president can ignore the laws the legislative branch makes whenever he wants. Show me one place where I ever claimed the legislative branch should enforce laws.[/quote]
When you say only the Congress can pass any law it wants and the executive must abide by it even if it is Unconstitutional. If any branch has this supreme power to tell the other branches what they can and cannot do then you no longer have seperation of powers. Each branch has their own defined powers and checks, the Constitution provides for them all, the only way they are changed is if the Constitution is changed.
The President is not a puppet of the Congress, he works with them not for them. The President is not obliged to enforce a law that goes against the Constitution unless one of them is changed.
Don't need any, not when federal court precedent provides for executive power in this instance above the Fourth Amendment without question. It applies to everyone, no matter their race, color, creed, religion... etc. It just doesn't conflict, end of discussion.
[quote name='elprincipe']Wrong way around, buddy. You keep insisting that the president can ignore the laws the legislative branch makes whenever he wants. Show me one place where I ever claimed the legislative branch should enforce laws.[/quote]
When you say only the Congress can pass any law it wants and the executive must abide by it even if it is Unconstitutional. If any branch has this supreme power to tell the other branches what they can and cannot do then you no longer have seperation of powers. Each branch has their own defined powers and checks, the Constitution provides for them all, the only way they are changed is if the Constitution is changed.
The President is not a puppet of the Congress, he works with them not for them. The President is not obliged to enforce a law that goes against the Constitution unless one of them is changed.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']When you say only the Congress can pass any law it wants and the executive must abide by it even if it is Unconstitutional. If any branch has this supreme power to tell the other branches what they can and cannot do then you no longer have seperation of powers. Each branch has their own defined powers and checks, the Constitution provides for them all, the only way they are changed is if the Constitution is changed.
The President is not a puppet of the Congress, he works with them not for them. The President is not obliged to enforce a law that goes against the Constitution unless one of them is changed.[/QUOTE]
How is FISA unconstitutional? I quoted some time ago from the Constitution passages that look to me to clearly support Congress' power to make laws in this area. What is your evidence that they can't? You need to actually argue the points I bring up, not just scream that any law is unconstitutional and the president can do anything he wants and court decisions that don't relate to the argument prove your point.
The President is not a puppet of the Congress, he works with them not for them. The President is not obliged to enforce a law that goes against the Constitution unless one of them is changed.[/QUOTE]
How is FISA unconstitutional? I quoted some time ago from the Constitution passages that look to me to clearly support Congress' power to make laws in this area. What is your evidence that they can't? You need to actually argue the points I bring up, not just scream that any law is unconstitutional and the president can do anything he wants and court decisions that don't relate to the argument prove your point.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Don't need any, not when federal court precedent provides for executive power in this instance above the Fourth Amendment without question. It applies to everyone, no matter their race, color, creed, religion... etc. It just doesn't conflict, end of discussion.[/QUOTE]
*Zero* of the cases you cited involved United States citizens; the precedent has not, then, been as established as you claim it has been. The fourth amendment doesn't apply to the people in the cases you claim, so that's not what's being debated in those cases. I'm not certain what jumps to conclusions you're making to feel so certain about these arguments, but they're incorrect.
Why not just cite the part of the consitution that grants this deus ex machina you call "constitutional authority"? You cited inapplicable court cases and government philosophy, yet you haven't cited the one document whose name is explicitly mentioned in the phrase coined to defend this wiretapping program. Please do so, or refine your framing of the issue to leave out the constitution.
*Zero* of the cases you cited involved United States citizens; the precedent has not, then, been as established as you claim it has been. The fourth amendment doesn't apply to the people in the cases you claim, so that's not what's being debated in those cases. I'm not certain what jumps to conclusions you're making to feel so certain about these arguments, but they're incorrect.
Why not just cite the part of the consitution that grants this deus ex machina you call "constitutional authority"? You cited inapplicable court cases and government philosophy, yet you haven't cited the one document whose name is explicitly mentioned in the phrase coined to defend this wiretapping program. Please do so, or refine your framing of the issue to leave out the constitution.
Ace-Of-War
CAGiversary!
[quote name='elprincipe']How is FISA unconstitutional? I quoted some time ago from the Constitution passages that look to me to clearly support Congress' power to make laws in this area. What is your evidence that they can't? You need to actually argue the points I bring up, not just scream that any law is unconstitutional and the president can do anything he wants and court decisions that don't relate to the argument prove your point.[/QUOTE]
FISA allows the Congress (or more specifically a few unelected, unaccountable judges) to control the executive branch. The Constitution calls for seperation of powers for a reason, it's not just something you can ignore for political expediency. My evidence is case after case of documented legal precedent that says the executive is not required to collect a warrant for wiretapping if the primary reason for doing so is urgent foreign intelligence matters. Perhaps you don't consider people who live next door to you calling Zarqawi directly a big deal, but, thankfully, that's why you're not in any position of power.
[quote name='mykevermin']*Zero* of the cases you cited involved United States citizens; the precedent has not, then, been as established as you claim it has been. The fourth amendment doesn't apply to the people in the cases you claim, so that's not what's being debated in those cases. I'm not certain what jumps to conclusions you're making to feel so certain about these arguments, but they're incorrect.[/quote]
You're honestly going to sit there and say our government has the right to deny anyone Constitutional protection because they aren't a citizen? I thought I was pretty hard-line against illegal immigration, but unless you retract that your definetely take the cake. I'm certainly not against the concept of human rights.
You'd obviously have to support censorship, torture, and indefinete captivity of anyone caught in the United States without proper identification. I mean, you can't just pick and choose what you want to give them.
I can only lead a horse to water, if you refuse to believe the executive branch has the sole power to enforce the law at it's own disgression without the meddling of other branches; I can't make you see. Who knows, maybe you're right, maybe Madison, Jay, and Hamilton just threw in the executive branch for fun. They thought it would be a gas to have some shmuck who had to embody the leadership of the United States as a whole with no real power or duty over anything.
FISA allows the Congress (or more specifically a few unelected, unaccountable judges) to control the executive branch. The Constitution calls for seperation of powers for a reason, it's not just something you can ignore for political expediency. My evidence is case after case of documented legal precedent that says the executive is not required to collect a warrant for wiretapping if the primary reason for doing so is urgent foreign intelligence matters. Perhaps you don't consider people who live next door to you calling Zarqawi directly a big deal, but, thankfully, that's why you're not in any position of power.
[quote name='mykevermin']*Zero* of the cases you cited involved United States citizens; the precedent has not, then, been as established as you claim it has been. The fourth amendment doesn't apply to the people in the cases you claim, so that's not what's being debated in those cases. I'm not certain what jumps to conclusions you're making to feel so certain about these arguments, but they're incorrect.[/quote]
You're honestly going to sit there and say our government has the right to deny anyone Constitutional protection because they aren't a citizen? I thought I was pretty hard-line against illegal immigration, but unless you retract that your definetely take the cake. I'm certainly not against the concept of human rights.
You'd obviously have to support censorship, torture, and indefinete captivity of anyone caught in the United States without proper identification. I mean, you can't just pick and choose what you want to give them.
I can only lead a horse to water, if you refuse to believe the executive branch has the sole power to enforce the law at it's own disgression without the meddling of other branches; I can't make you see. Who knows, maybe you're right, maybe Madison, Jay, and Hamilton just threw in the executive branch for fun. They thought it would be a gas to have some shmuck who had to embody the leadership of the United States as a whole with no real power or duty over anything.
[quote name='mykevermin']*Zero* of the cases you cited involved United States citizens; the precedent has not, then, been as established as you claim it has been. The fourth amendment doesn't apply to the people in the cases you claim, so that's not what's being debated in those cases.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, when you are in the united states, citizen or not, you are subject to the laws and can enjoy the same protections (or non-protections in this case) under the law as a citizen, so citizenship is not a determining factor in his argument.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, when you are in the united states, citizen or not, you are subject to the laws and can enjoy the same protections (or non-protections in this case) under the law as a citizen, so citizenship is not a determining factor in his argument.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']FISA allows the Congress (or more specifically a few unelected, unaccountable judges) to control the executive branch. The Constitution calls for seperation of powers for a reason, it's not just something you can ignore for political expediency. My evidence is case after case of documented legal precedent that says the executive is not required to collect a warrant for wiretapping if the primary reason for doing so is urgent foreign intelligence matters. Perhaps you don't consider people who live next door to you calling Zarqawi directly a big deal, but, thankfully, that's why you're not in any position of power.[/QUOTE]
To quote Ronald Reagan, "there you go again." First let's clear up some factual errors in your post.
- Judges are appointed and not elected according to the Constitution. Unless you are advocating a position that we should elect judges to the FISA Court, what I think most including myself would be a very dangerous idea, I don't see why "unelected judges" is made out by yourself to be something bad. And they are not "unaccountable" due to the fact that they are (1) appointed and approved by our elected president and representatives and (2) can be impeached if necessary. So "unaccountable" is simply a right-wing talking point when speaking about judges who make decisions they don't agree with.
- You again insist that I "don't consider people who live next door to you calling Zarqawi directly a big deal." Either improve your reading comprehension or risk being called stupid, since for the fourth time I'll tell you that is exactly opposite to what I said.
You again point to legal precedent that has to do with foreign citizens when I am talking about Americans. You again make a blanket statement about separation of powers. You are going in circles. Neither of these things addresses what I posted a page or two ago from the Constitution itself. Go back and read what I quoted from the Constitution and tell me why Congress can't make a law such as FISA. And stop dodging the issue, it's getting tiresome.
To quote Ronald Reagan, "there you go again." First let's clear up some factual errors in your post.
- Judges are appointed and not elected according to the Constitution. Unless you are advocating a position that we should elect judges to the FISA Court, what I think most including myself would be a very dangerous idea, I don't see why "unelected judges" is made out by yourself to be something bad. And they are not "unaccountable" due to the fact that they are (1) appointed and approved by our elected president and representatives and (2) can be impeached if necessary. So "unaccountable" is simply a right-wing talking point when speaking about judges who make decisions they don't agree with.
- You again insist that I "don't consider people who live next door to you calling Zarqawi directly a big deal." Either improve your reading comprehension or risk being called stupid, since for the fourth time I'll tell you that is exactly opposite to what I said.
You again point to legal precedent that has to do with foreign citizens when I am talking about Americans. You again make a blanket statement about separation of powers. You are going in circles. Neither of these things addresses what I posted a page or two ago from the Constitution itself. Go back and read what I quoted from the Constitution and tell me why Congress can't make a law such as FISA. And stop dodging the issue, it's getting tiresome.
Ace-Of-War
CAGiversary!
[quote name='elprincipe']- Judges are appointed and not elected according to the Constitution. Unless you are advocating a position that we should elect judges to the FISA Court, what I think most including myself would be a very dangerous idea, I don't see why "unelected judges" is made out by yourself to be something bad. And they are not "unaccountable" due to the fact that they are (1) appointed and approved by our elected president and representatives and (2) can be impeached if necessary. So "unaccountable" is simply a right-wing talking point when speaking about judges who make decisions they don't agree with.[/quote]
If you want unelected judges to co-preside over this nation, then that's your business. I, for one, like my judges to not have the power to stop the executive branch whenever they feel like. I did not elect them to enforce my laws, just the thought of letting someone like John Paul Stevens (or in your case Antonin Scalia perhaps) tell the President what he can and cannot do gives me goosebumps. Making sure the branches stay in line with the Constitution is one thing, but controlling them is another thing. That would be a dictator. Federal judges are unelected and unaccountable for their actions. You can disagree with me all you want, but those aren't factual errors, those are true statements. They are unaccountable because they are given lifetime appointments and they cannot be reprimanded if they make a ridiculous decision (Kelo v. New London anyone?)
Then quit acting like it! You want to punish our President for intercepting enemy information, that just doesn't seem very smart to me... especially not when we are at war. It's one thing to not support the institution because you feel that regardless of what the law says it's too invasive (TO WHICH I AGREE WITH,) but it's another to make false legal claims when you've consistantly been proven wrong.
Please, I'm not dodging anything. I asked you to provide me evidence that says the legislative or judicial branch has the power to enforce the law, you did not. I asked you to provide me with evidence that says legislative acts have the sole responsibility of defending this nation, you did not. I asked you to provide me which branch you think is responsible for defending this nation, you never answered. I asked you time and time again why you must bring an argument of political philosophy in here instead of a legal argument, you ignored that. I asked you why you didn't agree with the concept of seperation of powers as it has stood for over two hundred years, you declined to answer.
Reality check, okay? The Constitution gives the power to the executive, not the legislative or judicial, to defend this nation and the Constitution. The legislative cannot pass laws to change these Constitutional powers, they can only pass amendments. I can tell you until I'm blue in the face, but you can't seem to get that concept in your head. That's all I've been saying this entire time. The legislative branch does not have that kind of power.
If it did do you the the Democratic party would have dropped this issue to play port politics? I'll answer for you:
no. They would've been on him until he left office, but they've shut up about the wiretapping because they know they don't have anything. They know it's a practice that's been utilized since FDR with very few exceptions. They know they can't get President Bush on the issue and they know if they ever get the White House back they're going to want to use it too.
If you want unelected judges to co-preside over this nation, then that's your business. I, for one, like my judges to not have the power to stop the executive branch whenever they feel like. I did not elect them to enforce my laws, just the thought of letting someone like John Paul Stevens (or in your case Antonin Scalia perhaps) tell the President what he can and cannot do gives me goosebumps. Making sure the branches stay in line with the Constitution is one thing, but controlling them is another thing. That would be a dictator. Federal judges are unelected and unaccountable for their actions. You can disagree with me all you want, but those aren't factual errors, those are true statements. They are unaccountable because they are given lifetime appointments and they cannot be reprimanded if they make a ridiculous decision (Kelo v. New London anyone?)
\
Then quit acting like it! You want to punish our President for intercepting enemy information, that just doesn't seem very smart to me... especially not when we are at war. It's one thing to not support the institution because you feel that regardless of what the law says it's too invasive (TO WHICH I AGREE WITH,) but it's another to make false legal claims when you've consistantly been proven wrong.
Please, I'm not dodging anything. I asked you to provide me evidence that says the legislative or judicial branch has the power to enforce the law, you did not. I asked you to provide me with evidence that says legislative acts have the sole responsibility of defending this nation, you did not. I asked you to provide me which branch you think is responsible for defending this nation, you never answered. I asked you time and time again why you must bring an argument of political philosophy in here instead of a legal argument, you ignored that. I asked you why you didn't agree with the concept of seperation of powers as it has stood for over two hundred years, you declined to answer.
Reality check, okay? The Constitution gives the power to the executive, not the legislative or judicial, to defend this nation and the Constitution. The legislative cannot pass laws to change these Constitutional powers, they can only pass amendments. I can tell you until I'm blue in the face, but you can't seem to get that concept in your head. That's all I've been saying this entire time. The legislative branch does not have that kind of power.
If it did do you the the Democratic party would have dropped this issue to play port politics? I'll answer for you:
no. They would've been on him until he left office, but they've shut up about the wiretapping because they know they don't have anything. They know it's a practice that's been utilized since FDR with very few exceptions. They know they can't get President Bush on the issue and they know if they ever get the White House back they're going to want to use it too.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
Ace, I don't know what more to say. It's like talking to a brick wall. You never address what I bring up, and instead (poorly) attempt to redirect the argument towards false accusations against me or insipid strawmen. Thank God the majority of Americans aren't ready and willing to gut the Constitution as readily as you apparently are.
I'm tired of going in circles. If you'd like to finally address my questions, by all means let's do it, but if not don't bother.
I'm tired of going in circles. If you'd like to finally address my questions, by all means let's do it, but if not don't bother.
Ace-Of-War
CAGiversary!
[quote name='elprincipe']Ace, I don't know what more to say. It's like talking to a brick wall. You never address what I bring up, and instead (poorly) attempt to redirect the argument towards false accusations against me or insipid strawmen. Thank God the majority of Americans aren't ready and willing to gut the Constitution as readily as you apparently are.
I'm tired of going in circles. If you'd like to finally address my questions, by all means let's do it, but if not don't bother.[/quote]
I'm tired of going in circles. If you'd like to finally address my questions, by all means let's do it, but if not don't bother.[/quote]
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='elprincipe']Ace, I don't know what more to say. It's like talking to a brick wall. You never address what I bring up, and instead (poorly) attempt to redirect the argument towards false accusations against me or insipid strawmen. Thank God the majority of Americans aren't ready and willing to gut the Constitution as readily as you apparently are.
I'm tired of going in circles. If you'd like to finally address my questions, by all means let's do it, but if not don't bother.[/QUOTE]
You save me so much time. Time that my OCR software is eating the up tonight.
Thank you, elprincipe. I had considered taking one of AoW's posts and simply reposting it every time someone had a new argument, as if to simulate an actual conversation with him. You saved me the trouble.
you, OCR.
I'm tired of going in circles. If you'd like to finally address my questions, by all means let's do it, but if not don't bother.[/QUOTE]
You save me so much time. Time that my OCR software is eating the
up tonight.Thank you, elprincipe. I had considered taking one of AoW's posts and simply reposting it every time someone had a new argument, as if to simulate an actual conversation with him. You saved me the trouble.
you, OCR.
bread's done