The random political thoughts thread - Page 8

SacTown Chronic · 02-16-2006, 09:46 AM

And Cheney's idea of 'declassify' is to secretly authorize double-secret leaks to the media. Riiiiiiight.

wendybeth · 02-16-2006, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Hummm, it certainly looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, I wonder...

....How long before Cheney shoots it in the face?

Gemini Cricket · 02-16-2006, 10:25 AM

I bet Scalia is wiping his forehead right about now. *whew* 'That coulda been me.'

Ghoulish Delight · 02-16-2006, 02:24 PM

Crap, how did I miss this one. A month ago, the DoJ released its justification for sidestepping FISA. Page one states, among other things that the PotUS has "inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs."

Okay, pulling out the ol' Constitution to confirm this obviously accurate statement ('cause why would they, in the same sentence, mention the very document that proves them wrong").

Let's see, doing a search for mentions of the word "foreign". Alright, there's a reference in Article I, powers of Congress. Another for Congress. Surely the next mention...oh my, no mention of the President's sole powers in foreign affairs. As a matter of fact, any of the Presdient's powers that seem to have anything to do wtih foreign affairs must first go through Congress. Congress must decalre war before he may chiefly commander the troops. He must receive the "advice and concent" of the
senate to make treaties, and only after 2/3 of the Senate concurs. It's the senate that my make rules regarding "capture on land and water".

So what exactly did the DoJ mean by "sole organ"?

Ghoulish Delight · 02-16-2006, 02:39 PM

And further more...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11393473/

If FISA is going to be modified to "accommodate the NSA program", would that not imply that it does not currently "accommodate" it and that therefore the President was violating said law? I mean, do they think that this some sort of inverse "Ex Post Facto" thing where if they vote to change the law after they break it, then they retroactively are innocent?

Alex · 02-16-2006, 03:01 PM

Not necessarily. Just because a law makes something explicitly legal does not necessarily mean it was illegal before.

If a grey area in the law means you feel you can ride your bike in the street and then the city council passes a law saying explicitly that you can ride your bike in the street, does this mean you were breaking the law before?

Now, I don't agree that this is analogous to what has happened but I believe that the president and his people would claim it is.

scaeagles · 02-18-2006, 02:44 PM

I love morons like Alec Baldwin.

A quote from the last day or two:

"Cheney is a terrorist. He terrorizes our enemies abroad and innocent citizens here at home indiscriminately."

Whether you agree or disagree with him is not the point. The point is that I guess it is OK if you terrorize in a non-indiscriminate fashion. Like beating your wife, as Baldwin did repeatedly to Kim Bassinger. That's OK, I guess.

wendybeth · 02-19-2006, 12:42 AM

I hate it when actors dabble in politics.

(If it helps, I think he's a creep as well).

wendybeth · 02-19-2006, 12:47 AM

Can you believe that Cheney's shooting victim actually apologised for causing such a fuss for poor Dick? It must be some Texas version of the Helsinki Syndrome, or a whole lotta payola crossing palms.

(Of course, he could just be afraid that Cheney will try and finish the job....)

Motorboat Cruiser · 02-19-2006, 02:21 AM

"I'm sorry you shot me in the face"

yes, there is something wrong with that statement.

02-16-2006, 09:46 AM	#71
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	And Cheney's idea of 'declassify' is to secretly authorize double-secret leaks to the media. Riiiiiiight. __________________ Is it the fingers, or the brain that you're teaching a lesson?
	Submit to Quotes

02-16-2006, 10:25 AM	#73
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	I bet Scalia is wiping his forehead right about now. whew 'That coulda been me.'
	Submit to Quotes

02-16-2006, 02:24 PM	#74
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Crap, how did I miss this one. A month ago, the DoJ released its justification for sidestepping FISA. Page one states, among other things that the PotUS has "inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs." Okay, pulling out the ol' Constitution to confirm this obviously accurate statement ('cause why would they, in the same sentence, mention the very document that proves them wrong"). Let's see, doing a search for mentions of the word "foreign". Alright, there's a reference in Article I, powers of Congress. Another for Congress. Surely the next mention...oh my, no mention of the President's sole powers in foreign affairs. As a matter of fact, any of the Presdient's powers that seem to have anything to do wtih foreign affairs must first go through Congress. Congress must decalre war before he may chiefly commander the troops. He must receive the "advice and concent" of the senate to make treaties, and only after 2/3 of the Senate concurs. It's the senate that my make rules regarding "capture on land and water". So what exactly did the DoJ mean by "sole organ"? __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

02-16-2006, 02:39 PM	#75
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	And further more... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11393473/ If FISA is going to be modified to "accommodate the NSA program", would that not imply that it does not currently "accommodate" it and that therefore the President was violating said law? I mean, do they think that this some sort of inverse "Ex Post Facto" thing where if they vote to change the law after they break it, then they retroactively are innocent? __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

02-16-2006, 03:01 PM	#76
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Not necessarily. Just because a law makes something explicitly legal does not necessarily mean it was illegal before. If a grey area in the law means you feel you can ride your bike in the street and then the city council passes a law saying explicitly that you can ride your bike in the street, does this mean you were breaking the law before? Now, I don't agree that this is analogous to what has happened but I believe that the president and his people would claim it is.
	Submit to Quotes

02-18-2006, 02:44 PM	#77
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I love morons like Alec Baldwin. A quote from the last day or two: "Cheney is a terrorist. He terrorizes our enemies abroad and innocent citizens here at home indiscriminately." Whether you agree or disagree with him is not the point. The point is that I guess it is OK if you terrorize in a non-indiscriminate fashion. Like beating your wife, as Baldwin did repeatedly to Kim Bassinger. That's OK, I guess.
	Submit to Quotes

02-19-2006, 12:42 AM	#78
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	I hate it when actors dabble in politics. (If it helps, I think he's a creep as well). __________________
	Submit to Quotes

02-19-2006, 12:47 AM	#79
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Can you believe that Cheney's shooting victim actually apologised for causing such a fuss for poor Dick? It must be some Texas version of the Helsinki Syndrome, or a whole lotta payola crossing palms. (Of course, he could just be afraid that Cheney will try and finish the job....) __________________
	Submit to Quotes

02-19-2006, 02:21 AM	#80
Motorboat Cruiser Cruiser of Motorboats Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: So Cal Posts: 3,665	"I'm sorry you shot me in the face" yes, there is something wrong with that statement.
	Submit to Quotes