- 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:
That I'm even entertaining this challenge is a GIFT. As I've pointed out, your challenge is extremely thin.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.
Fine... fine... that's the way you want *unzips, urinates on the constitution*...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.
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?
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.
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 won't have it. Act like a civilized human being or stop pretending to be a man.
who's skirt do you run under when things look ugly and you know can't stand alone?I notice you love the word faction. I'm not sure who my faction is, but everything we do I judge against that document.
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.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.
Why is it unconstitutional? It supports the separation of powers.The Logan Act is horribly unconstitutional.
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.
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. |
who's skirt do you run under when things look ugly and you know can't stand alone?
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.
Why is it unconstitutional? It supports the separation of powers.
Article 2 sections 2 and 3:
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.
Upon that point we agree... and yet you took a crap in your own hand and threw it at me.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.
not true... I cited some very complete information on it: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 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.It didn't materialize until well after a few bb's hit me in the tush.
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.
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 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.
Either way. Let's play nice.
This was not necessary.
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.
And we can move.....
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.
double post... damn forum... does anyone else find that they post and it just hands there for five minutes for no damn reason?
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.
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.And now I'm supposed to care about the frigging Logan Act?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?