Laws Schmlaws - Page 6 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

boneheaddoctor · #76 12-20-2005, 09:59 PM

I'm making a prediction the Democratic party is going to get caught wearing frilly panties when we find out why they are defending terrorists in the USA in the next year.

Southernstar · #77 12-20-2005, 10:15 PM

Clinton huh? Is that your defense?

boneheaddoctor · #78 12-20-2005, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southernstar

Clinton huh? Is that your defense?

Hey , it was legal for him and every other president before him to do....and the left never had a problem before now...

I see strong parrallels between the oil for food scandle with France and germany and this thing with the Democrats and Alqueda.

dlssmith · #79 12-20-2005, 10:21 PM

Hey now BHD there has never been an article in the NY Times showing that there is a connection between the democratic party and Al Qaida, so it can't be true.

boneheaddoctor · #80 12-20-2005, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlssmith

Hey now BHD there has never been an article in the NY Times showing that there is a connection between the democratic party and Al Qaida, so it can't be true.

All the more reason to believe it is....

Southernstar · #81 12-20-2005, 10:24 PM

The question that should be asked is why would W NOT get the Court to approve of the wire tap? Oh, and does W, since he is preznint, even have to get a Court's approval? I mean we are at "war" right? I feel certain that most God fearing Americans have no problem with that, right?

boneheaddoctor · #82 12-20-2005, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southernstar

The question that should be asked is why would W NOT get the Court to approve of the wire tap? Oh, and does W, since he is preznint, even have to get a Court's approval? I mean we are at "war" right? I feel certain that most God fearing Americans have no problem with that, right?

You seem to have proof he didn't...so where is it...

Honus · #83 12-20-2005, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Lawyers have a fancy name for that: Precedent.

Bot

That's not what lawyers mean when they refer to precedent. Precedent, in legal terms, means a court ruling, not a previous violation by another president.

Honus · #84 12-20-2005, 11:21 PM

I heard a pair of Johns Hopkins professors on the radio this evening who have a new book coming out about how presidents in this country have become "monocractic." I've never heard that term before, but it fits W. He doesn't care what Congress or the courts have to say, he's the C-in-C and he's got the power.

They made an interesting point about the dilemma faced by people like Senator Rockafeller who received classified info about a program that was probably illegal. If I understood their argument, Rockafeller could have spilled his guts on the floor of the Senate and still be immune from prosecution because anything said on the floor of either house of Congress is absolutely priviliged. There can be no criminal prosecution for anything a legislator says there.

Interesting thought, but it doesn't really cure Rockafeller's dilemma. If he was wrong about the illegality of Bush's actions, then his speaking out on the floor would accomplish nothing good and could be very bad for the country.

dlssmith · #85 12-20-2005, 11:46 PM

A Senator or member of the House can request a closed session to address issues that have national security implications.

Harry Reid did it recently to discuss something or other, I forget, but it wasn't wiretapping by the Pres. The NY Times hadn't completed his script on that one yet.

dlssmith · #86 12-20-2005, 11:52 PM

The President is indeed monocratic, if I understand the word. It's the nature of the office. Very different constitutionally than other heads of state around the world. Think of the King of England back 300 years, but with a four year term.

Remember, the President can send the military out to pick up a pizza if that's what he wants. No one can stop him. System was designed that way. But most Presidents have asked the congress to give consent for military intervention in recent years, most especially President Bush. Clinton avoided doing so when he sent troops to Bosnia, for instance, if memory serves.

Honus · #87 12-21-2005, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlssmith

The President is indeed monocratic, if I understand the word. It's the nature of the office. Very different constitutionally than other heads of state around the world. Think of the King of England back 300 years, but with a four year term.

Remember, the President can send the military out to pick up a pizza if that's what he wants. No one can stop him. System was designed that way. But most Presidents have asked the congress to give consent for military intervention in recent years, most especially President Bush. Clinton avoided doing so when he sent troops to Bosnia, for instance, if memory serves.

The President is the C-in-C and has all the powers that come with that position, but his authority does not include the right to violate the Fourth Amendment. At least not as far as I know.

A264172 · #88 12-21-2005, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

...How about explaining Operation Able Danger..which the left has gone out of their way to bury that happened a YEAR before 9/11 in Clintons term. I suppose that was different.

This is a big deal. We had an opportunity to stop 911 and our system prevented it. The US person distinction cost us 3000 lives and changed the course of history. But once again with Bush we have a course of action that is mapped out behind closed doors and without concensus. Let an investigation begin.

"It's not that I think you will steal from me, It's that I am careful with my money."

cmac2012 · #89 12-21-2005, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neanderthal

the fool should have been impeached a long time ago. congress has no balls.

Not to mention a Republican majority.

blueeagle289 · #90 12-21-2005, 08:00 AM

This whole uproar about the president checking on subversives is obviously a Democratic Party ploy to throw dirt on the Pres and the Republicans.... Anyone can see, on a daily basis, that the Dems spend about half of their costly time in office trying to create political capital for the next election!!

Someone should suggest that the Dems in congress should give back a high percentage of their income from us taxpayers, for all the BS they create and spend time reshuffling !!

All the little boys and girls in congress are the ones who should be sent home, and replaced with good professional lawmakers who will do their job.