catbirdseat Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 so let's list the things that AREN'T stated in the constitution... abortion??? gay marriage?? etc.... oh wait - it's open to interpretation, eh? You're damn right it is. Are you one of those Bork fans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Bork can't hold a tune. it sounds like she is singing while her leg is caught in a bear trap... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Maybe it is time for another civil war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Congress says A, executive says B - the Supreme Court will probably have the final say. I can live with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 All from Wiki....which is not alway true. Executive Privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain search warrants and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned in the United States Constitution, but some consider it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1] Presidents since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have argued that each branch of government may operate with some degree of freedom from the control or supervision of the others.[citation needed] The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that it can be invoked when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns. Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis. See bold highlighted area...... Nuff said....bush is a crimial.....what is he trying to hide? so let's list the things that AREN'T stated in the constitution... abortion??? gay marriage?? etc.... oh wait - it's open to interpretation, eh? Either you have not read the Constitution or else you did not understand it. There is no mention of our civil rights b/c the document outlines the limitations of our govt's powers--NOT our rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 duh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinomyte Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Question for everyone, who actually HAS read the Constitution? My guess would be that a good 99% of Americans haven't. And, the parts they have read were probably perused in 5th grade. Slightly off-subject, but... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 the Supreme Court will probably have the final say. Yeah but look what happened last time the let the Supreme Court decide! Bush was appointed. Thousands have died on his watch…..and for what…..his pocketbush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I have, but then, I am a history buff so I read a lot of shit about our country and our gov't. I'm a real thrill at dinner parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 (edited) Executive Privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain search warrants and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned in the United States Constitution, but some consider it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1] Just incase any Bush supports did not see this.... Wonder why Clinton used it? goerge washington, Nixon, Dwight, ect... ect... Huh? Edited June 28, 2007 by Seahawks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinomyte Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Good for you! I'm into beer and 80s music trivia! We all have our things! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weekend_Climberz Posted June 28, 2007 Author Share Posted June 28, 2007 Either you have not read the Constitution or else you did not understand it. There is no mention of our civil rights b/c the document outlines the limitations of our govt's powers--NOT our rights. Well, this isn't exactly the truth. It's in the Bill of Rights, which is an amendment to the Constitution. So, yes and no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I understand that and agree with the yes. But, during discussions like these, folks seem to get the idea that the whole thing is about what you and I get to do--fun stuff like buy guns and get abortions. I think that all too often folks don't realize that that stuff is the afterthought--that the founders were primarily interested in independence from England and the Parliment. Am I boring you yet? Hell, I am reading "John Adams" right now and am all excited about it. People around me actually fall asleep when I pick up my book and say, "Did you know...." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Congress says A, executive says B - the Supreme Court will probably have the final say. I can live with that. I can't. The Supreme court is a group of political appointees whos confirmmations were largely based on back room deals. As proven in 2000, the supreme court cannot issue a non-partisan ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 none of the branches can... and we are back to "checks and balances" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 none of the branches can... and we are back to "checks and balances" Sorry, I am not following you (I'm not sure you were responding to my post). I didn't say that any single branch can anything. Its the end of the day and my eyeballs are tired, so maybe I missed something obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weekend_Climberz Posted June 28, 2007 Author Share Posted June 28, 2007 People around me actually fall asleep when I pick up my book and say, "Did you know...." Sounds like the the same response I get when I talk to Pixie about the climbing books I read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 i was replying to the statment that the supreme court couldn't be unbiased. all of the branches have their biases... this was understood when the idea of checks and balances was installed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I understand that and agree with the yes. But, during discussions like these, folks seem to get the idea that the whole thing is about what you and I get to do--fun stuff like buy guns and get abortions. I think that all too often folks don't realize that that stuff is the afterthought--that the founders were primarily interested in independence from England and the Parliment. Am I boring you yet? Hell, I am reading "John Adams" right now and am all excited about it. People around me actually fall asleep when I pick up my book and say, "Did you know...." ' Read "The Federalist Papers," and the debates that occurred during the Constitutional Convention and it's hard to support the claim that they thought that structure and function of the government that they were establishing were of little importance for preserving the rights and liberties they'd just secured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Congress says A, executive says B - the Supreme Court will probably have the final say. I can live with that. I can't. The Supreme court is a group of political appointees whos confirmmations were largely based on back room deals. As proven in 2000, the supreme court cannot issue a non-partisan ruling. Well - there you have it. I think it's a tragedy of epic proportions that we aren't living in a country in which the structure and function of our government were conceived and debated by a bunch of ill-read hacks like Jefferson, Madison, Adams, et al and not by the likes of Doug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmallShoes Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 BTW, why isn't the Democrat Congress working on what they promised to be doing to get elected? You know, getting the troops out of Iraq? I guess it's easier to launch endless, politically-driven, bullshit investigations. Let's see, I think I remember hearing something about "ending the culture of corruption" around those same elections. These "bullshit" investigations into the possible misuse power to get rid of U.S. attorneys for the gain of political advantage seem to fall into that line. If the U.S. attorneys were fired to impede investigations into Republican politicians and/or as retribution for not speeding up investigations into Democrats in time for elections that is corruption and an investigation into why the attorneys were fired is not "bullshit". Investigating how the executive branch (specifically the Vice President's office) keeps sensitive information safeguarded would also be related to ending corruption. It would ensure that sensitive information wasn't declassified or leaked for political reasons (Scooter anyone?). In order to avoid showing how his office safeguards secrets (or rather how it doesn't safeguard them) the Vice President takes the position that he's not part of the executive branch and thus not subject the executive order from the President saying everyone in the executive branch has to show how they safeguard sensitive information. So how can the VP invoke exective privilege (again to keep from releasing documents) if he's not part of the executive branch? But corruption isn't important right KK? Just Iraq? Hell let's forget about our civil rights while we're at it and just let any government official wiretap anyone for anything. No one's going to be able to challenge because they the Attorney General does what the Executive branch tells him to do (or not to do). Isn't the Attorney General supposed to be part of the judicial branch? I'm confused, how many branches of government are there supposed to be again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dt_3pin Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 (edited) Congress says A, executive says B - the Supreme Court will probably have the final say. I can live with that. I can't. The Supreme court is a group of political appointees whos confirmmations were largely based on back room deals. As proven in 2000, the supreme court cannot issue a non-partisan ruling. Well - there you have it. I think it's a tragedy of epic proportions that we aren't living in a country in which the structure and function of our government were conceived and debated by a bunch of ill-read hacks like Jefferson, Madison, Adams, at all and not by the likes of Doug. Tired of Jefferson and those other hacks? Then join this flippin' sweet campaign!!! Edited June 29, 2007 by dt_3pin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Congress says A, executive says B - the Supreme Court will probably have the final say. I can live with that. I can't. The Supreme court is a group of political appointees whos confirmmations were largely based on back room deals. As proven in 2000, the supreme court cannot issue a non-partisan ruling. Well - there you have it. I think it's a tragedy of epic proportions that we aren't living in a country in which the structure and function of our government were conceived and debated by a bunch of ill-read hacks like Jefferson, Madison, Adams, at all and not by the likes of Doug. Doug's comment speaks volumes about his "support" for our form of government. And people like him wonder why they are distrusted so and called things like "unpatriotic". If what you want is some sort of revolution, buddy, just spit it out clearly so we all know undeniably what you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 I think those hacks had a great idea. And they put a pretty effective form of government together some 200+ years ago. The fact that it's lasted this long with minor changing here and there is a testament to their brilliance and foresight. Unfortunately politicians, both liberal and conservative, and the parties they are associated with and the special interests they represent have expolited the system for their own gain and in some cases will take down anything and evreything that stands in their way. Yup, I'm unpatriotic as hell! I guess that fact that I'm a registered and active voter, participate in my community and really do want what is best for the country as a whole is diminished and/or obliterated by the fact that I don't like what is wrong wrong with our country. What really pisses me off is the position many of the followers of the current moron in chief take: if you ain't for us, your against us. Sounds like we need another revolution because it was precisely that type of thinking that got those hacks over here in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.