Your paranoid political post du jour

[glacier]

Libertarian Cato Institute slams Bush's Constitutional record

 

From the summary:

Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes

 

* a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech—and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;

* a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;

* a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as "enemy combatants," strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror— in other words, perhaps forever; and

* a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.

 

President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers.

[mattp]

The word "paranoid" carries a connotation of unjustified concern.

[Peter_Puget]

Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes

 

* a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech—and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;

We're talking campaign finance reform here guys. Don't be confused.

* a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror; any tactic? really?

* a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as "enemy combatants," strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror— in other words, perhaps forever; and agreed

* a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave. Oh Please any President since FDR has thought this.

 

President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers. The Tubes! The Tubes!

 

By the way you guys are slow on the draw posting this.

[cj001f]

THE APOCALYPSE IS NEAR! PP DISAGREES WITH THE CATO GOONS!

[Peter_Puget]

I have always held that the campaign finance reform laws were an insidious and unconstitutional intrusion into the political process. So we are in agreement with #1.

 

I do think Bush has been restrained by our constitution and laws. So we do disagree here.

 

Cato and PP agree on #3

 

I agree with #4 I just see it as business as usual and certainly better than if say any of the last two Dems had been elected President.

 

So Cato and I agree 75% of the time.

 

PP

[mattp]

Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

[mattp]

Is the imposition of free speech zones related to campaign financing? The ban on showing American casualties in the media?

[Peter_Puget]

[Peter_Puget]

matt -

 

I would be happy to discuss issues with you however you spray falsehoods and when corrected run away. (See the gas prices thread) Here you obliquely attack the President through "lawyerly” tricks. AKA Smear tactics. Certainly a clear and direct presentation of the facts would be more convincing and encurage a warm hearted response. Step up to the plate and swing!

 

Edit to add link: Gas price thread....or Bush let those %%$#@ Bin Ladens fly.

 

Edited May 2, 2006 by Peter_Puget

[mattp]

[mattp]

Peter -

I would be happy to discuss politics with you if you would like to follow up on a point directly instead of smearing and attacking me personally. I'm sorry I went climbing last weekend and didn't get back to you when you corrected my grievous error. Not only that, but I didn't check back in on Monday morning. Checking quickly on the Internet now, it looks as if at least one of the Saudi flights was one of the very first flights to leave the country after they started to reopen airspace, but probably did not occur during the actual closure and the "Bin Ladin family" flight was days later. That is if you believe the 911 commission ... and considering some of their other "findings," I'm not totally sure that I do.

[Peter_Puget]

Peter -

I would be happy to discuss politics with you if you would like to follow up on a point directly instead of smearing and attacking me personally. I'm sorry I went climbing last weekend and didn't get back to you when you corrected my grievous error. Not only that, but I didn't check back in on Monday morning. Checking quickly on the Internet, it looks as if at least one of the Saudi flights was one of the very first flights to leave the country after they started to reopen airspace, but probably did not occur during the actual closure. That is if you believe the 911 commission ... and considering some of their other "findings," I'm not totally sure that I do.

 

Even here you can't just come out and say that there is no evidence to support your assertion. Using the term "probably" in this case is absurd. Attcking you? Do you deny that you are using a manipulative poll? Does taking a quote out of context not lend itself to abuse? What if I took a Matt quote and wrote a similar poll with a well known pedophile as the other choice? Wouldn't that be smearing you via trickery? I would think so.

[RogerJ]

Gads... this is good reading. I sure hope Ivan doesn't post a penis picture and spoil the fun.

[olyclimber]

I'm really looking forward to the live fact-to-face political debate we're having at the picnic! body blow! body blow!

[mattp]

What are you saying here, Peter? Have not both presidents Nixon and Bush taken the most expansive view of their presidential powers of any president in memory? Would YOU know which of them said those words if you didn't google it to find out?

 

(And, by the way, let's not repeat the Plame thread -- let's discuss POLITICS.)

[Peter_Puget]

If Matt and I meet at the picnic we'll be talking important stuff like climbing!

[mattp]

The same would be the topic of our various private messages and emails. It is only here in Spray that we like to make fools of ourselves this way.

[Peter_Puget]

My point is out of context no one can tell anything. But you do smear by association. I am certain both Bush and Nixon would be libertarians compared to FDR.

 

As a sidebar: Johnson declassified and leaked "secret" info to correct BS from a former governemnet official concerning the Vietnam war. Something as yet unproven concerning Mr & Mrs. Vanity Fair.

[mattp]

Yes, it is all in context. FDR certainly expanded the role of the Federal government - and as far as I know his programs have generally been regarded as part of our recovery from the Great Depression though I realize that some people dislike the legacy of welfare and "big government," but did FDR actually argue that the president as a single individual should be given broad power that prior presidents had not enjoyed? I don't remember reading that in my history book.

[Peter_Puget]

Actually FDR changed what was legal in the US by restructuring the supreme court. Much more of a change than pushing some boundries as Bush may have.

 

Many economists have thoguht that some of FDRs plans may have extended/deepened the GR.

[mattp]

Yes, I remember reading about his "Packing" the Court and I am aware some (mostly fairly far right, I believe) still regard him as a terrible President. I believe the more "average" view of his Presidency is more postive, however. But what does this have to do with how Bush is expanding the powers of the President today?

[scheissami]

I may be off here, but I recall something about him trying to increase the number of supreme court judges. He would then be responsible for appointing these new judges; usurping the idea of checks and balances by stacking the odds in his favor! Pretty crafty (if I remembered correctly).

[catbirdseat]

I may be off here, but I recall something about him trying to increase the number of supreme court judges. He would then be responsible for appointing these new judges; usurping the idea of checks and balances by stacking the odds in his favor! Pretty crafty (if I remembered correctly).

That would require an amendment to the Constitution. The things Bush has done have involved basically ingoring laws and crafting new laws that expand his power that don't require amending the Constitution.

[Peter_Puget]

I may be off here, but I recall something about him trying to increase the number of supreme court judges. He would then be responsible for appointing these new judges; usurping the idea of checks and balances by stacking the odds in his favor! Pretty crafty (if I remembered correctly).

That would require an amendment to the Constitution. The things Bush has done have involved basically ingoring laws and crafting new laws that expand his power that don't require amending the Constitution.

 

CBS - google search it is your friend!

[EWolfe]

Glacier, you are a brilliant troll artist: mention polotics in a semi-serious way, and bing! 4 pages of J_B, PeterPuget, and JayB will follow.

 

Werd.