Impeachment isn't the first response but I added them

Post #285,900 by Seamus 5/30/07 8:38:34 PM Reply	Impeachment isn't the first response but I added them to show a pattern of abuse of the constitutional separation of powers. Democrats are letting them get lost in their confusion of what to do next. Seamus
Post #285,901 by boxley 5/30/07 8:44:06 PM Reply	the democrats are too concerned about getting the whole hog during the next election cycle to give a rats ass about the country thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #285,902 by bepatient 5/30/07 9:10:36 PM Reply	Signing statements go back to Monroe Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton all used them...with progressively more legal challenge included. Clinton even had his Justice dept write up a formal statement that abdicated his duty to enforce specific parts of the law that he disagreed with. GW has taken this slide down the slope to an entirely new level, of course, because it is very difficult to put the cat back in the bag. However, the ABA is working it. If we could get a line item veto rule passed, this would likely all go away. But calling the use of signing statements impeachable is..well it isn't. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #285,907 by Simon_Jester 5/30/07 10:19:29 PM Reply	Minor nit If we could get a line item veto rule passed, this would likely all go away. Line-item vetos are on budgetary items, not bills. Most signing statements I've seen refer to bills.
Post #285,908 by Another Scott 5/30/07 10:31:44 PM Reply	John Dean had an interesting commentary on them. [link\|http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060714.html\|FindLaw] from July 2006: [...] Bush's defenders have portrayed his actions with signing statements as standard operating procedure for all recent presidents. In particular, they have cited Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton's signing statement practices as precedents. But Bush's use of the signing statement is not only non-standard, it is egregious, and plainly itself unconstitutional. The Constitution, and the president's oath of office swearing to uphold it, require a president to veto legislation he finds unconstitutional, and send it back to Congress so its members can correct the flaw. The system is simple and wise - and Bush is subverting it. In over six years in office, Bush has not vetoed a single bill. Therefore, he has avoided the political costs those vetoes would have rightly entailed. Instead, Bush has issues a steady stream of signing statements claiming that the very bills he is signing have constitutional problems. Bush's extraordinary and unconstitutional use of signing statements is making the laws enacted by the representatives of the people irrelevant. It is also making a mockery of due process: How can anyone have prior notice of what the law says, if so many laws come with a warning that the President may disregard some of their provisions? [...] Cheers, Scott.
Post #285,921 by bepatient 5/31/07 5:56:00 AM Reply	GWB has taken this... ...previous abuse of the office and stretched it to its "logical" conclusion for Washington...which is as far as it can be stretched without snapping in half. IMO, the SC needs to take one of these laws and invalidate it by saying, specifically, that the signing statement is unconstitutional. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #285,929 by boxley 5/31/07 9:21:11 AM Reply	Rats and constitutional law dont exactly go together Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #285,930 by Another Scott 5/31/07 9:28:27 AM Reply	Shooting the messenger (Dean) doesn't help the argument...
Post #285,925 by hnick 5/31/07 7:27:32 AM Reply	There is a line item veto. Just veto any bill that contains more than one item. Just vote on one thing at a time. That would keep all those idiotic pork riders off. It would also keep the pols on the hook as they wouldn't be able to say "I had to vote for the blah bill because it was tied to the snort bill that is SO importent to the CHILLLDREEEEN..." It would be interesting if everybody in government just did their friggin job. On a different topic... If we deleted all posts that contained the "But somebody else did it!" excuse/justification and the derivitive posts, we would have about 7 posts left in this forum. It's getting past boring and into disgusting.
Post #285,927 by bepatient 5/31/07 8:09:43 AM Reply	2 things Hurray!!! Several states have the one item per vote rule. Some critics say it would make Washington screech to a halt because there would be too many bills to process. I support it. Think its a fabulous idea. Second...the problem (that seems largely relegated to box and myself) is the contention that somehow this latest (P)resident invented all of this crap. He should be (blah blah blah) because he (blah blah blah). It seems, sometimes, that it has to be pointed out that this crap has been happening for far longer. Hell...maybe they should thank him instead of trying to impeach him for showing them all the ways their Fed government has been screwing them for nearly 40 years. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #285,941 by hnick 5/31/07 12:18:15 PM Reply	Heh! Washington screeching to a halt because they had to pass so many bills would be wonderful. That would imply that they actually had to read all of each bill and know what it was about (I think somebody proposed a bill like that which was immediately rejected.) Further, if they only had time to pass necessary bills, maybe government would be less intrusive. Just a thought. I think it was Sam Clemens who said something like "No mans liberty or wallet is safe when congress is in session." Thanking W for showing us how badly government can foul up, would be like expecting the Cambodians to thank the Kymer Rouge for reminding them that death exists. At a certain point there are no more excuses. W is way past that point. I suspect that the last bunch of presidents have screwed things up so badly that our government as it stands, is past repair. I'd like to be wrong...
Post #285,943 by boxley 5/31/07 1:00:27 PM Reply	as a country we have survived worse Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #285,965 by hnick 5/31/07 6:32:11 PM Reply	Think Hookes modulus My thought is that each time government process/policy is twisted in a new direction, the "heat of deformation" will produce stress and brittleness that will eventually cause the material to break. The effect is cumulative. Our civil war caused enormous stress and brittleness which is still spreading. It's not over either. It will outlive all of us. I assume that was what you where referring to. If not, I don't really care about Indians. Sorry. Recent (since and including Kennedy) presidents have done a lot of twisting and mangling. The damage done, destruction of the Constitution, corporate citizenship, manipulation of states rights... an endless list, has caused cumulative material damage to our society that only massive treatment can correct. That will not be pretty. my last 0.02 to this discussion. Not only am I broke, but I'm not dumb enough to argue with you when you've been popping your redneck pills.
Post #285,971 by Ashton 5/31/07 6:52:37 PM Reply	+5 Originality - an apt scienterrific application of Hooke! -- exceeding the modulus of elasticity of any [color=] [psi=] [object=neck]
Post #285,954 by Seamus 5/31/07 5:26:23 PM Reply	Signing statements I am not saying he invented any of this crap. My view on signing statements is not that the use of signing statements is impeachable but it is just one tool this president as used to subvert the constitution and place itself as the sole interpreter of the law. Bush is using signing statements like line item vetoes. Yet the Supreme Court has held the line item vetoes are unconstitutional. In 1988, in Clinton v. New York, the High Court said a president had to veto an entire law: Even Congress, with its Line Item Veto Act, could not permit him to veto provisions he might not like. [link\|http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html\|John Dean at FindLaw] His use of signing statements goes well beyond what preceding presidents have used them for. Other presidents have push the line and tried to grab power from congress and the courts, but this president operated from a different perspective. Instead of trying to grab power, IMO he started his administration with the believe that the presidency already had these powers and he doesn't have to explain his view of presidential powers to anyone; including Congress. That is why he is different from other presidents and why I am treating him differently than I would treat other presidents. Congress has done anything about signing statements, so I doubt they put them in to any articles of impeachment - not that I think they are going to impeach him either. Seamus
Post #285,957 by boxley 5/31/07 5:40:08 PM Reply	another rat reference, why is he an authority on anything? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #285,959 by Seamus 5/31/07 5:53:18 PM Reply	Why is he a rat? Because he felt a greater loyalty to the country than to Nixon? Seamus
Post #285,960 by boxley 5/31/07 6:00:58 PM Reply	yeah, right. He had a greater loyalty to his virgin asshole which is why he ratted out to avoid prison. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #285,961 by Seamus 5/31/07 6:08:20 PM 5/31/07 6:08:36 PM Reply	So there is nothing he has done since then to redeem himself in your eyes? Seamus Edited by Seamus May 31, 2007, 06:08:36 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #285,966 by boxley 5/31/07 6:37:05 PM Reply	what has he done? rat days [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dean\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dean] Dean pled guilty to obstruction of justice before Watergate trial judge John Sirica on November 30, 1973. He admitted supervising payments of "hush money" to the Watergate burglars, notably E. Howard Hunt, and revealed the existence of Nixon's enemies list. On August 2, 1974, Sirica handed down a sentence of one to four years in a minimum-security prison. However, when Dean surrendered himself as scheduled on September 3, he was diverted to the custody of U.S. Marshals and kept instead at Fort Holabird (near Baltimore, Maryland) in a special "safe house" holding facility primarily used for witnesses against the Mafia. He spent his days in the offices of the Watergate Special Prosecutor and testifying in the trial of Watergate conspirators Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Robert Mardian, and Kenneth Parkinson, which concluded on January 1, 1975. Dean's lawyer moved to have his sentence reduced, and on January 8, Sirica granted the motion, adjusting Dean's sentence to time served. post rat days what has he accomplished since then, he claims to have written a book about watergate, ended up in court over it and has written about law since. He is too flawed to have an legal argument without the stench of corruption attached. Same reason I wouldnt buy into Liddy's version of what the constitution means. At least liddy wasn't a rat. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #285,970 by Another Scott 5/31/07 6:51:55 PM Reply	So he shouldn't have told the truth?
Post #285,982 by boxley 5/31/07 8:01:40 PM Reply	he should have been building a case to get all of them instead of rolling over like a trick when caught. I would have had a lot more respect if he had said I am respnsible but will not discuss anyone elses role. And done his time. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #285,986 by Another Scott 5/31/07 8:42:23 PM Reply	Has anyone else in the US government ever done that? I'm not aware of an example. Isn't it better for someone to come forward and tell the truth about their illegal activities, and what they know about the illegal activities of others, than to do what, say, Scooter Libby did? I think it's much better to come clean in sworn testimony, even if it's late. I also think his obligation to the country was much greater than to his former colleagues. Cheers, Scott. (Who notices that Amazon's "Surprise Me" excerpt of Libby's novel [link\|http://www.amazon.com/Apprentice-Novel-Lewis-Libby/dp/0312284535/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/002-5664532-8022445\|The Apprentice] has some weird discussion among hunters about having their way with a deer...)
Post #285,987 by boxley 5/31/07 8:54:41 PM Reply	scooter did the right thing so did Liddy, they have the courage of their convictions, even if they are wrong. Either one has priciples and stands on them or one does not. Dean clearly does not stand for anything except what is good for dean. Dean did not "come forward" he was hoisted squealing like a pig after being caught. Come forward it aint. I guess I am of a different era. You beleive what you are doing is right and stck by it. The vagaries of circumstance really shouldnt determine morals practiced. thanx. bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #285,996 by Another Scott 5/31/07 9:35:44 PM Reply	Scooter lied to FBI, obstructed justice, comitted perjury. Somehow I thought that if someone was held up as an example of standing up for the "courage of their convictions", then they should also accept the consequences. [link\|http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/files/52507_fitzgerald_sentencing_memorandum.pdf\|Libby's a whining liar]. Dean [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2002/05/31/AR2005112200792.html\|talked to the Senate investigators] before he was granted immunity. He understood that Nixon was damaging the country and he stood up and took the heat for testifying against a pretty [link\|http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/13/cq/poll.html\|popular president]. He served time. For someone who's so idealistic about so many things, I'm surprised that you think that Libby's somehow honorable. It seems to me that our system of government and our judicial system *cannot* work if people lie under oath and obstruct justice. But different strokes, I guess. Cheers, Scott. ("But what about Clinton?" That's a different thread...)
Post #286,024 by CRConrad 6/1/07 9:34:25 AM Reply	"The courage of their convictions, even if they are wrong"? That's what makes Scooter "Perjury" Libby and G. Gordon "Zippo" Liddy good guys, in your eyes??? Wow. That's just, um... Wow. (To [probably] misquote an LRPDism.) You DO realise, of course, that that also makes Adolf a good guy, according to you? (Along with every single one of his SS henchmen -- the more unrepentant of their crimes against humanity they were, the more "good guys" they were, in your reasoning.) Are you beginning to see why I've been calling you "scary" a few times, recently? Maybe you think I was kidding. If so, you are mistaken: I was not. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #286,030 by boxley 6/1/07 10:50:58 AM Reply	principled!=good in any case We were talking about criminal elements in government that broke many laws excluding murder. Different class than the crowd you are describing. Gleefully carrying out burglaries, paying off henchmen and then ratting out your fellow crooks makes that person a lesser being than those who gleefully carried out burglaries, henched then did their time with a no comment. Why are you scared? I cant afford to fly to DC much less finland :-) thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #286,088 by CRConrad 6/2/07 7:33:48 PM Reply	Because you, and people like you, get to vote over there. Actually, I've been scared of where the fuck you guys -- Americans, the ones who vote on who gets to be the most powerful man not only in America but the WORLD, with his finger hovering over The Button -- are taking us all ever since 2004. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...", and all that. You (all) voted in the Chimp-in-Chief again. How the fuck could anybody sane NOT be scared of you? [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #286,090 by Andrew Grygus 6/2/07 7:48:18 PM Reply	Given that the Ohio elections were probably rigged . . . . . by Dibold, we probably didn't actually elect him for the second term, and with the Florida fiasco we may not have actually elected him to the first term either. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #286,091 by CRConrad 6/2/07 8:27:54 PM Reply	Sorry, not good enough; shouldn't have been even close. The fact that he got more than, say, ten percent, the second time around, that alone means that something's wrong as Hell over there. Heck, the fact that he even got the nomination already does. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #286,099 by boxley 6/3/07 10:28:23 AM Reply	yer saying it was better in the old days? only white property owners could vote senators were appointed by governors president was appointed by the electoral college which was run by the state legislators I'll bring it up during the next MLK rally and see how it flies. By the way, how come mr KGB Putin got re-elected? Case of pot and kettle etc. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #286,104 by CRConrad 6/3/07 11:21:10 AM Reply	WTF are you gibbering about? Yes, of course it was! In... ...the "good old days" under, say, Clinton -- he only screwed an intern; he did not fuck the Constitution up the ass with a chainsaw. Now cut it out with the stupid strawmen, willya, before everybody thinks you ARE as stupid as you're trying to sound here. Thank you. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #286,112 by boxley 6/3/07 1:29:28 PM Reply	clinton didnt trample the WHAT! of course he did although not the shattering the current crew is doing. Makes me glad you lot cant vote here, thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #286,136 by CRConrad 6/3/07 4:45:37 PM Reply	OK, so read it as "Clinton didn't shatter it" in stead. Still makes it the good old days, compared to the total ass-reaming the current crew is giving it. WTF is wrong with you, that you insist on pretending this huge difference is as nothing?!? You might be glad, but that is precisely what has me so scared: That you, OTOH, are allowed to vote over there. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #286,015 by Seamus 6/1/07 6:22:56 AM Reply	No you tell everything you know and take the consequences That would be impressive. Libby was, and I assume he still is, blindly loyal. Blind loyalty has no place in a representative government. Seamus
Post #285,972 by Ashton 5/31/07 7:04:02 PM Reply	What I see in this analysis is - Exactly the rationale for when.. {{ Street kid wants to get into local gang. Big kids say, OK punk - go shoot some random cop. [like, quite recently - in Sackamenna CA - killed him dead] The watching, wise-quipping gangbangers, all knowing Code-of-Silence, (having seen the latest massively popular Mafioso-deifyin Tee Vee series) - to the point of memorizing the comical-tough-lines to drop on new 13 yos: watch. the. kid. go. out. door, clearly enroute to 1) Acceptance by this Lovely Group 2) 17 virgins -- but first: 3) Life sans parole. And.. that's All that any One of them next Does. }} These kids..? Not. a. RAT. in. the. bunch. {{{Applause by The Troops}}}
Post #285,981 by boxley 5/31/07 8:00:03 PM Reply	so a trained lawyer is no better than a street punk? nevermind... but you would think he would have more morals than that? nevermind,,, grumble, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #285,998 by Ashton 5/31/07 9:45:21 PM Reply	We were talking about RATS You were saying: ~ if you TELL, you are a RAT. And I say.. that's Mafioso doggerel (and <13 yo territory) == prior to ever Getting to any intro-to personal 'ethics' course. (The subject-topic just hasn't come up - for many.) For some - it never Does. Those last stay pre-teen for liff. Dying as winos or CIEIOs. Some admire {{a Lot, I guess}} - those guys/psychopaths who can hold their hand in a candle flame till it smells lika a Baghdad street.. then, \ufffd l\ufffd 007, declare - the trick is in not minding.. (I could say ~~ "when you TELL" and why you tell, if.. you do tell.) But I wouldn't want to disturb your simple homily by incinerating it, prematurely - now would I? As to ~~Lawyers~~ any so-called 'Profession'al? (We profess to ___ and to ___ and: pay us $Lots/hour because We Profess ___) See above. See Foulwell; see lawyer-Nixon, see the University-educated Nazis amidst the mob. See Reiser (made neat file systems though, eh?) See MBAs at Enron. Professionals - all. Hint - a foolish consistency is
Post #285,973 by Seamus 5/31/07 7:09:02 PM Reply	Liddy was/is psycho Having a ghost writer and trying to protect his wife's reputation doesn't detract from his current research. If you can find flaws in his arguments, lets hear them. Seamus
Post #285,980 by boxley 5/31/07 7:58:38 PM Reply	why dont you read a real constitutional scholar instead of a hack whose only claim to fame is to get caught breaking the law then sliming all over himself when caught. He should have done the same thing ashcroft did on his hospital bed, "thats against the law" full stop. Then he would have some gravitas in regards to constitutional law. John Hart Ely Gerry Spence Thurgood Marshal David Golove Lawrence A Tribe None of the above are lowlifes and actually have experience in something other than investment banking, mopery and ratting out fellow co-conspirators thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #286,014 by Seamus 6/1/07 6:17:32 AM Reply	Constitutional scholars The ABA panel of constitutional scholars find Bush's use of signing statements constitutional problematic. Tribe, while not agreeing with the panel does think that Bush's use of signing statements show that he is over stepping his constitutional authority in the signing statements by taking on Congress's role of regulating conduct of executive branch officials. Which is my I think his use of signing statements is needed to show the pattern of abuse of his office that warrants impeachment. Seamus
Post #286,023 by boxley 6/1/07 9:12:00 AM Reply	just for grins, what decade of life are you in? no obligation to answer of course. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #285,955 by Seamus 5/31/07 5:26:36 PM 5/31/07 5:27:10 PM Reply	duplicate Seamus Edited by Seamus May 31, 2007, 05:27:10 PM EDT Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!