• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Pelosi Defies White house - To Meet W/Terrorists!

ARealConservative

cookies crumble
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
14,518
Reaction score
3,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No, that's actually the supreme court's job. They are the guardian's the constitution. What's more congress is more responsible as they would have in fact WRITTEN the damn legislation.


And again, it's an INCREDIBLY thin argument. You want to send bush to jail for not vetoing the no child left behind act. :lol:
I love the spin. So Mr Shock - why does the president even bother swearing to defend the constitution? He doesn't propose legislation (ya - right), and apparently it isn't his duty to uphold the constitution when signing legislation (ya- right) as you feel that is what the courts are for. So based on your views of the duties of the president - swearing to uphold the constitution is a waste of time.

Could it be that you and everybody like you ignores the constitution unless you can use it to smear the other party. Seems like it to me. Parading this ridiculous Logan Act around while ignoring how it would restrict actual rights of individual Americans paints a picture that can't be ignored.
 

Karmashock

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
897
Reaction score
67
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I love the spin. So Mr Shock - why does the president even bother swearing to defend the constitution? He doesn't propose legislation (ya - right), and apparently it isn't his duty to uphold the constitution when signing legislation (ya- right) as you feel that is what the courts are for. So based on your views of the duties of the president - swearing to uphold the constitution is a waste of time.
That I'm even entertaining this challenge is a GIFT. As I've pointed out, your challenge is extremely thin.

Furthermore, we're talking about LEGALITY. Not oaths. Said oath's are strictly speaking symbolic.


The seperation of powers places the president's authority as head of the EXECUTIVE. Which means he does not judge the constitution... he merely does what it says... including all other laws applicable.


Congress writes the laws and has control of the budget.

The supreme court as well as being the highest court in the land also has the power to JUDGE laws.



This is basic high school civics. Did you or did you not pass?


Please cite a LEGAL precedent for your challenge... and I would recommend you choose one that's a more substantial then that.

Seems like it to me. Parading this ridiculous Logan Act around while ignoring how it would restrict actual rights of individual Americans paints a picture that can't be ignored.
Fine... fine... that's the way you want *unzips, urinates on the constitution*...

all the laws, all the values. etc... all gone. IT's just politics then... when all the integrity is gone that's all it is... so no one is going to have it then that's where it goes and with it goes this whole society.


Blood in the streets... and when future generations read about what happened ot america this will cited as the rather sad decline of what was once the greatest republic in the history of man.

You don't deserve a republic... you deserve a dictator that knows exactly how short your chain should be... that is a REAL conservative... an ignorant privative always wondering where his next meal is coming from.
 

ARealConservative

cookies crumble
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
14,518
Reaction score
3,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That I'm even entertaining this challenge is a GIFT. As I've pointed out, your challenge is extremely thin.

Furthermore, we're talking about LEGALITY. Not oaths. Said oath's are strictly speaking symbolic.


The seperation of powers places the president's authority as head of the EXECUTIVE. Which means he does not judge the constitution... he merely does what it says... including all other laws applicable.


Congress writes the laws and has control of the budget.

The supreme court as well as being the highest court in the land also has the power to JUDGE laws.



This is basic high school civics. Did you or did you not pass?
I obviously know this stuff far better then you do.

Let me correct some of your most glaring mistakes.

1) The Supreme Court is only supreme over the lower federal courts.

2) It is the duty of all branches of government to defend the constitution using all powers grantred to them by said constitution. For the president - this means he is obligated to veto law that is violates the constitution. But of course since Bush campaigned under a law that is in violation of the constitution no way would he restrain government after the election.

3) The power for judicial review is no where to be found in the constitution

You don't deserve a republic... you deserve a dictator that knows exactly how short your chain should be... that is a REAL conservative... an ignorant privative always wondering where his next meal is coming from.
I love it. The Bushbot is telling me that I deserve a dictator.

Coockoo....Coockoo.


My basic point is the constititution is completely ignored now. I couldn't give a flying frick about the stupid Logan Act and this retarded administrations fricked up foreign policy. We are just waiting for this flipping nightmare to be over with and you Bushbots can go slink back into a corner somewhere and dream of what could of been.
 
Last edited:

ARealConservative

cookies crumble
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
14,518
Reaction score
3,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I finally understand where the Bushbots are coming from.

It took a second reading but there it is in black and white.

Defending the constitution doesn't matter. The oath one takes is "merely symbolic".

What really matters is the Logan Act. We must defend the Logan Act at all costs.

Who cares if foreign aid is unconstitutional, or if the patriot act goes to far. Who cares if national debt is skyrocketing. Pelosi talked to someone that the least popular president in American history didn't want her talking to.

:rofl
 

Karmashock

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
897
Reaction score
67
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Where are you defending the constitution? Name aplace it doesn't suit your faction to do so? Is the constitution something you only bring out when you have an axe to grind?


And I won't take any more name calling. You will not refer to me as "bushbot". It is rude, childish, and drags the quality of the whole argument down. It's these sorts of comments that push the whole discussion from the logical into the world of emotion and passion. A place where everyone screams at other and no one can hear themselves think. Which I can only assume would suit you as you seem hell bent on turning every thread into a string of personal attacks which would lead in reality to someone breaking a chair over your head.


I won't have it. Act like a civilized human being or stop pretending to be a man.
 

ARealConservative

cookies crumble
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
14,518
Reaction score
3,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Where are you defending the constitution? Name aplace it doesn't suit your faction to do so? Is the constitution something you only bring out when you have an axe to grind?
I notice you love the word faction. I'm not sure who my faction is, but everything we do I judge against that document.

When I hear our president talk about how we are a nation ruled by law, not men - I dream of a time that it was true. Now it's not. We are ruled by men that stretch the actual menaing of this document to fit their views.

The Logan Act is horribly unconstitutional. Its the reason it was introduced 200 years ago and sat on a shelf. It won't stand up to judicial review (which isn't in the constitution buy the way). So it gets rolled out now and again to point fingers at the other guy - but it will never go further then that. It's useful for partisan nitwits to shout down the other group of partisan nitwits and not much more.

But you are convinced that we must act based on this.

I used NCLB as a spoof of why you ignore law. How about foreign aid for Israel. Neither congress, nor the president has been granted power to take my property and hand it over to a foreign government. Where are you screaming about our politicians abusing their powers in regards to this crime?

I thought so. Friging hypocrites that doesn't know half as much as they think they know. But ya, you keeping crying about the Logan Act. In the meantime we will continue to watch the clock tick down to midnight so your clueless leader will be gone.
 

ARealConservative

cookies crumble
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
14,518
Reaction score
3,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I won't have it. Act like a civilized human being or stop pretending to be a man.
hilarious!!

So far in your attempt to keep the debate civil you have insinuated that I'm a clown and that I failed civic class.

Now I'm pretending to be a man?
 

Karmashock

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
897
Reaction score
67
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I notice you love the word faction. I'm not sure who my faction is, but everything we do I judge against that document.
who's skirt do you run under when things look ugly and you know can't stand alone?


Do stand out in the field and get slaughtered?... or do you run to one side or the other?

When I hear our president talk about how we are a nation ruled by law, not men - I dream of a time that it was true. Now it's not. We are ruled by men that stretch the actual menaing of this document to fit their views.
true to a point. Are you prepared to see that everyone that breaks it pays the price for it? Because if you are then I am... sure... burn bush down... hell, you can burn him down first. Just don't stop there.

The Logan Act is horribly unconstitutional.
Why is it unconstitutional? It supports the separation of powers.

Article 2 sections 2 and 3:
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
25,781
Reaction score
11,163
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Moderator's Warning:


That's enough. Antagonizing little tid bits like calling people "Bushbots" will result in a reaction. In this case, someone's manhood gets questioned in order to throw back some abrasion. This is how personal insults gets loaded into catapults.

 

ARealConservative

cookies crumble
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
14,518
Reaction score
3,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
who's skirt do you run under when things look ugly and you know can't stand alone?
I don't know. It used to be that I had a political party that respected conservative thinking. Now when I go visit my old faction I find a bunch of monkeys flinging poo at another faction. There is crap all over the floor and it stinks.

true to a point. Are you prepared to see that everyone that breaks it pays the price for it? Because if you are then I am... sure... burn bush down... hell, you can burn him down first. Just don't stop there.
Yep

Why is it unconstitutional? It supports the separation of powers.

Article 2 sections 2 and 3:
It's worded in a manner that it is too vague to be enforcible. Any discussion with any heads of foreign state could violate the logan act.
 

ARealConservative

cookies crumble
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
14,518
Reaction score
3,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Moderator's Warning:


That's enough. Antagonizing little tid bits like calling people "Bushbots" will result in a reaction. In this case, someone's manhood gets questioned in order to throw back some abrasion. This is how personal insults gets loaded into catapults.

quite true, however you got it backwards.

Bushbot was the loaded catapult. It didn't materialize until well after a few bb's hit me in the tush.
 

Karmashock

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
897
Reaction score
67
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I don't know. It used to be that I had a political party that respected conservative thinking. Now when I go visit my old faction I find a bunch of monkeys flinging poo at another faction. There is crap all over the floor and it stinks.
Upon that point we agree... and yet you took a crap in your own hand and threw it at me.


What does that make you?


Eat a little humble pie... it's good for you.


All I wanted to do was express an opinion. I thought I did so in a sensible and respectful manner... and then before I know it, I'm ducking high velocity excrement.


If there is a return to the great logical and philosophical foundation of what this nation was then it will not come through pithy insults. It will come through logic and reason... Even if you have to GRIT your teeth to remain so.


It's worded in a manner that it is too vague to be enforcible. Any discussion with any heads of foreign state could violate the logan act.
not true... I cited some very complete information on it:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33265.pdf

I can pick out bits if you don't want to actually read it... but I think you owe it to yourself to have a proper opinion before you start making judgments.
====================================================
It didn't materialize until well after a few bb's hit me in the tush.
Not excusable. If someone hits you in the "tush" ask/tell them to stop. Don't make the situation worse by degenerating to name calling. You're either a force for civilization or a force for barbarism.
 
Last edited:

ARealConservative

cookies crumble
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
14,518
Reaction score
3,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Upon that point we agree... and yet you took a crap in your own hand and threw it at me.


What does that make you?


Eat a little humble pie... it's good for you.

All I wanted to do was express an opinion. I thought I did so in a sensible and respectful manner... and then before I know it, I'm ducking high velocity excrement.
Look closer- that's simply the poo I brushed off my backside. It's your poo I threw back.


Insinuating that someones position is that of a clown is not respectful. You brought the debate down to what it became and when you were being treated in the same manner - you went to the mods for support. I guess that makes them your faction. :lol:
 
Last edited:

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
25,781
Reaction score
11,163
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
quite true, however you got it backwards.

Bushbot was the loaded catapult. It didn't materialize until well after a few bb's hit me in the tush.
Either way. Let's play nice.

Karmashock said:
Not excusable. If someone hits you in the "tush" ask/tell them to stop. Don't make the situation worse by degenerating to name calling. You're either a force for civilization or a force for barbarism.
This was not necessary.
 

ARealConservative

cookies crumble
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
14,518
Reaction score
3,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Either way. Let's play nice.



This was not necessary.
Either was post #88 of his. Fortunately for him, most of us don't go running to the mods.

I'm sorry the guy felt the need to throw out personal insults at several of us in this thread, and I'm especially sorry he felt the need to drag the mods in to cover for him when we responded in kind.

You guys have enough crap to worry about.
 

Karmashock

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
897
Reaction score
67
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
As I said... you have to choose if you're going to be a force for civilization or barbarism. I say that in simple defense of my attempt to save this discussion from puerile name calling. This of course never worked in school... but that's because most children are barbarians by nature... civility in itself being a sign of maturity. So children of course rightly see no logic trying to walk the high road instead of punching the offending brat in the mouth and spitting on him while he's clutches his face.... The mistake I see in many people is that they never grow out of this mentality... and forever remember the playground... a happy place... a childhood place of laughing smiling children... but like the lord of the flies its a different world where the laws and morals of savages rule the minds.



If we are civilized... then we can respect the need for rules and the need for order. We can respect that barbarism has no place in these discussions.

And we can move beyond this unfortunate conflict between us and instead focus on the thread topic. Lets do that.
 

ARealConservative

cookies crumble
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
14,518
Reaction score
3,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
As I said... you have to choose if you're going to be a force for civilization or barbarism. I say that in simple defense of my attempt to save this discussion from puerile name calling. This of course never worked in school... but that's because most children are barbarians by nature... civility in itself being a sign of maturity. So children of course rightly see no logic trying to walk the high road instead of punching the offending brat in the mouth and spitting on him while he's clutches his face.... we could all do... but to what end?



If we are civilized... then we can respect the need for rules and the need for order. We can respect that barbarism has no place in these discussions.

And we can move beyond this unfortunate conflict between us and instead focus on the thread topic. Lets do that.
Who do you think your fooling? You have called people a tool and a clown before I even entered this thread.

But anyway, now that people are responding in kind - you want the debate to raise to a higher level. Hey, I'm fine with that too. The last post of content was my own.

Let's recap. After questioning if I could pass a high school level civics class, I pointed out the factual inaccuracies of your own understanding of the constitution.

You ignored that and focused on the term bushbot.

So going back to the content - Why don't you explain for me how/where the constitution grants SCOTUS the power of judicial review.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
And we can move.....
On to how about do you believe Pelosi gave the press conference she did this afternoon trying to spin her way out of the mess she got herself into? Now its 'we took and message to Syria saying that the Israelis were now ready to come to the table and talk peace if you now agree to stop supporting terrorism and be nice stop support Hamas and the PLO.' First that has ALWAYS been the stipulation it is not carrying a new message, this isn't telling anyone anything they didn't already know. And she has modified her original statement. She is causing calamity in our foriegn policy trying to act like the Secretary of State, even the Democrat talking head on John Gibson's show just stated that carrying messages between foreign heads of state on behalf of the US Government is the job of the SecState NOT the Speaker of the House.

She should be censured, and asked to step down and if she refuses voted our of the Speakership.
 

Karmashock

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
897
Reaction score
67
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)


Do you really want to hash out changes that the founders themselves made to the rules? After all... much of the credibility of the constitution itself rests upon said founders assumed wisdom and intelligence to begin with.
 

Karmashock

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
897
Reaction score
67
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
double post... damn forum... does anyone else find that they post and it just hands there for five minutes for no damn reason?
 

ARealConservative

cookies crumble
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
14,518
Reaction score
3,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Marbury v. Madison (1803)


Do you really want to hash out changes that the founders themselves made to the rules? After all... much of the credibility of the constitution itself rests upon said founders assumed wisdom and intelligence to begin with.
So in essence, judicial review came from judicial review.

And yes, we need to hash out these changes because they are beginning to sno-ball on us. To claim the founders played a major role in a single SCOTUS case is inaccurate.

Take this entire issue. We give ridiculous sums of money to Israel and Palestine - the courts have remained silent on the issue. Everything under the sun is recognized as interstate commerce - the courts have remained silent. The 1st and 14th amendment have somehow been tied together while the 9th is completely ignored. The courts have remained silent.

And now I'm supposed to care about the frigging Logan Act?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
double post... damn forum... does anyone else find that they post and it just hands there for five minutes for no damn reason?
gremlins...............
 

gullivers travails

New member
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
42
Reaction score
7
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I studied Political Science for 5 years and have professionally debated and negotiated for 15 years, but I'm unable to compete on this forum. Why?

Here's a new posting - for me, it poses roadblocks of an impossible nature for proceeding with debating:

"Take this entire issue. We give ridiculous sums of money to Israel and Palestine - the courts have remained silent on the issue. Everything under the sun is recognized as interstate commerce - the courts have remained silent. The 1st and 14th amendment have somehow been tied together while the 9th is completely ignored. The courts have remained silent."

How has it been determined that 'ridiculous sums of money' were given - who says so - what constitutes 'ridicuous' in this context?

What does "Everything under the sun is recognized as interstate commerce" mean? What does 'interstate commerce' have to do with Pelosi?

Did the courts remain silent even if no case was presented - are courts supposed to react to publicized claims of misbehavior? How have the 2st and 14th amendment 'somehow' been tied together? In what manner, as it relates to the discussion underway?

Who said or established that the 9th (whatever) was ignored - and, in reference to what? 'Silent' courts again?

But, I'll keep trying.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I studied Political Science for 5 years and have professionally debated and negotiated for 15 years, but I'm unable to compete on this forum. Why?

Here's a new posting - for me, it poses roadblocks of an impossible nature for proceeding with debating:

"Take this entire issue. We give ridiculous sums of money to Israel and Palestine - the courts have remained silent on the issue. Everything under the sun is recognized as interstate commerce - the courts have remained silent. The 1st and 14th amendment have somehow been tied together while the 9th is completely ignored. The courts have remained silent."

How has it been determined that 'ridiculous sums of money' were given - who says so - what constitutes 'ridicuous' in this context?

What does "Everything under the sun is recognized as interstate commerce" mean? What does 'interstate commerce' have to do with Pelosi?

Did the courts remain silent even if no case was presented - are courts supposed to react to publicized claims of misbehavior? How have the 2st and 14th amendment 'somehow' been tied together? In what manner, as it relates to the discussion underway?

Who said or established that the 9th (whatever) was ignored - and, in reference to what? 'Silent' courts again?

But, I'll keep trying.
Doesn't make sense to try to debate a rant. Except maybe to rant back.
 

Karmashock

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
897
Reaction score
67
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
And now I'm supposed to care about the frigging Logan Act?
Are you expected? No... I don't expect you to care at all. I care of course... and I expect other people to care... but you've made it clear that you don't care... so not really an expectation.
 
Top Bottom