You mean one that whines and attempts to sidetrack the Supreme Court when it passes down a ruling he doesn't like? No thanks, we've got one kinda like that already, although thankfully he's only got enough time left to only do the whining.
Cite? Or are you paraphrasing?
From Bush's signing statement on the McCain Detainee Amendment:
""The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks." (emphasis mine)
Translation: "I'm going to do this however the hell I want, and Congress and the courts can do exactly zip about it regardless of how Congress intended it to be implemented because I'm the Commander in Chief and I disavow any Congressional or judicial authority over that position."
No, it mostly means that they were more concerned about their chances for re-election than doing what was best for the country, however unpopular it might have been.
But how can you accurately teach the applicability of USSID 18 outside of the complete legal context in which it exists? In particular, under what legal theory can a classified internal regulation issued by an executive agency (with no legislative input whatsoever) overrule the stated supreme law of the land?
I'm not suggesting you don't know your stuff, but I am asking how this can be taught absent the obvious Constitutional issues, particularly when it grants power to an executive appointee in contravention of the language of the Constitution, and your students should frankly be asking the same thing.
I would like to try to focus attention on those issues without it being about the individual
But it *needs* to be about the individual. Having a single point of executive responsibility answerable to the people is part of the reason the framers of the Constitution gave power to a single President instead of a plural executive. It also needs to be about the punishment being swift and severe enough that it serves as an example to others who take office in the future.
I agree that it needs to be about the offenses instead of popularity or politics, but I believe it needs to happen.
Fine, let the Republicans obstruct the investigation, but make sure every damn person in the country knows exactly who stood in the way come election time.
I think the "violent action" he's alluding to is the possibility that if the President believes he's going to be imprisoned, he could very well look the Senate in the eye and say, "Go ahead and try", and he'll use the tools at his disposal (i.e. the military) to back that up. At that point, if rest of the executive supported him the American people would be forced to decide whether it would be worth fighting a protracted and bloody war against their own troops to remove him from power.
But the executive being under a microscope makes no difference if the checks and balances aren't exercised when it gets out of control. Having a Congress that continues to freely write checks and a judiciary that won't slap down the abuses ensures that nothing of consequence will change.
This would flood the oil commodities market and drop the price of oil. This would cause the people investing in oil commodities (who are driving up the cost) to lose their money.
The thing is, there's already plenty of oil to go around, but the speculators are still continuing to drive the cost up. Certainly it will come crashing down on them at some point, but in the meantime I don't think suddenly increasing supply will do a whole lot because these idiots don't seem to be playing by the accepted rules to begin with. It's more of a very expensive game of brinksmanship where the winner gets a hell of a lot of money and the loser gets a lot of oil futures that he can't unload without losing his shirt, while we pay out the nose for them to play this stupid game in the meantime.
I would like to add that the death of 4,095 American soldiers is nothing.
Well, maybe the 30,000+ wounded and 40,000 or so that have already returned with mental issues makes it a little more interesting for you? We see a lot fewer deaths but more injuries owing to the more effective armor our soldiers wear now. An explosion that would have killed a soldier in Vietnam now "merely" takes his arm off. And all this for something that does jack-all to contribute to our national security, which is the *only* reason these guys should be subjected to the risk of losing life or limb.
As I remember, the court action was a civil sexual harassment suit against Clinton, and demonstrating a similar pattern of behavior with his other staff most definitely would have had some bearing on the credibility of Jones' accusations, would it not?
He swore "to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", and he's been pissing all over that document for the past seven years. Is that not good enough? He's come out and unashamedly said, "I know Congress passed this law with this language, but I'm not going to interpret it in accordance with the wishes of Congress. Rather, I'm going to do whatever the hell I feel like." He may not have lied under oath in a court of law, but don't you *dare* try to paint him as some upstanding champion for the American people with an unblemished record.
The real difference between Clinton and Bush is that Bush's people are too smart to let him get tripped up on the minutiae like Clinton did. I would say that Clinton certainly should have paid more for his perjury, but Bush needs to serve hard time for some of the stuff he's done.
All they have to do is say that they war powers they gave him after 9-11 don't include the ability to invent a new category of prisoner, denied both the constitutional protections of the accused criminal and the treaty protections of the POW.
They don't even have to do that. All they had to do was say "no more money" and cut his appropriations to the bare minimum needed to provide the necessary services and no more. All of Bush's blustery posturing and wild legal theories don't change the fact that Congress could have shut him down in a heartbeat, but they've chosen not to do so.
Same here. I've been quite happy with my prepaid service (I usually buy 1000 minute blocks at a time, which will last me for 9-10 months on average), but then I have no need for data services, and *very* limited need for SMS. I'm one of the few people that actually use my phone just as a phone, and I see no need to pay a great deal of money for it.
Of course, your mileage may vary, and everyone's free to buy what they want, but I don't know very many people that truly *need* the "always there" connectivity that most monthly plans offer.
The only reason people choose the contract is because they perceive the initial costs as lower when in fact the costs over the lifetime of the quality of service received may be higher.
And because of that, we're stuck with this bullshit "standard" two-year contract because the cellular providers know that people will just swallow those costs and other restrictions in the contract and then rave about what a deal they got because of the phone subsidy. It's ludicrous.
Here's a question - how many of those cellular contracts require you to submit to binding arbitration, even though it's almost *never* in your interest to do so? How many of them offer a pro-rated discount on your monthly rate for the time that the phone is not on the network (phone turned off, bad reception, etc.)? The contracts are so one-sided it's comical.
If there's one thing they've figured out, it's that their user base is _never_ going to "turn on them".
That's not entirely true - I consider myself something of a former Apple fanboy, but after the streak of hardware problems I've had over the past few years, the Apple systems I have are being replaced by commodity PC hardware as they die. The only Apple machine I regularly use now is my iPod, and when the wife's MacBook dies, it's almost certainly going to be replaced with non-Apple hardware as well.
Article 6 of the Constitution might be relevant here:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (emphasis mine)
I would agree that this sounds like a First Amendment issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if the courts pull out Article 6 and wave it in everyone's face if the treaty becomes a reality.
One might even go so far to say that the perceived threat of terrorism is such that it's making people more accepting of the idea of a much more extensive armed government presence in their everyday lives, because it will "protect them".
It's disappointing that this is modded flamebait when it represents how a lot of people feel. Guess some people aren't grown-up enough to moderate objectively.
The current Democratic Congress that replaced the last Republican one also said they were diametrically opposed to what's been going on, and they've done exactly squat about it after having two years to work on it. Republicans and Democrats are equally useless in my book - they're both about promoting their own self-interests on the backs of the populace, and heaven forbid they introduce any legislation that might actually benefit anyone other than their fountains o' funding.
Slashdot Mirror
you need a new 'new deal' president like FDR.
You mean one that whines and attempts to sidetrack the Supreme Court when it passes down a ruling he doesn't like? No thanks, we've got one kinda like that already, although thankfully he's only got enough time left to only do the whining.
Cite? Or are you paraphrasing? From Bush's signing statement on the McCain Detainee Amendment:
""The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks." (emphasis mine)
Translation: "I'm going to do this however the hell I want, and Congress and the courts can do exactly zip about it regardless of how Congress intended it to be implemented because I'm the Commander in Chief and I disavow any Congressional or judicial authority over that position."
No, it mostly means that they were more concerned about their chances for re-election than doing what was best for the country, however unpopular it might have been.
But how can you accurately teach the applicability of USSID 18 outside of the complete legal context in which it exists? In particular, under what legal theory can a classified internal regulation issued by an executive agency (with no legislative input whatsoever) overrule the stated supreme law of the land?
I'm not suggesting you don't know your stuff, but I am asking how this can be taught absent the obvious Constitutional issues, particularly when it grants power to an executive appointee in contravention of the language of the Constitution, and your students should frankly be asking the same thing.
I would like to try to focus attention on those issues without it being about the individual
But it *needs* to be about the individual. Having a single point of executive responsibility answerable to the people is part of the reason the framers of the Constitution gave power to a single President instead of a plural executive. It also needs to be about the punishment being swift and severe enough that it serves as an example to others who take office in the future.
I agree that it needs to be about the offenses instead of popularity or politics, but I believe it needs to happen.
He's dumb, he's ugly, nobody pays attention to him, yet he actually does stick up for what the voters want, which is why we keep reelecting him.
Don't forget the smokin' hot wife too.
Fine, let the Republicans obstruct the investigation, but make sure every damn person in the country knows exactly who stood in the way come election time.
I think the "violent action" he's alluding to is the possibility that if the President believes he's going to be imprisoned, he could very well look the Senate in the eye and say, "Go ahead and try", and he'll use the tools at his disposal (i.e. the military) to back that up. At that point, if rest of the executive supported him the American people would be forced to decide whether it would be worth fighting a protracted and bloody war against their own troops to remove him from power.
But the executive being under a microscope makes no difference if the checks and balances aren't exercised when it gets out of control. Having a Congress that continues to freely write checks and a judiciary that won't slap down the abuses ensures that nothing of consequence will change.
This would flood the oil commodities market and drop the price of oil. This would cause the people investing in oil commodities (who are driving up the cost) to lose their money.
The thing is, there's already plenty of oil to go around, but the speculators are still continuing to drive the cost up. Certainly it will come crashing down on them at some point, but in the meantime I don't think suddenly increasing supply will do a whole lot because these idiots don't seem to be playing by the accepted rules to begin with. It's more of a very expensive game of brinksmanship where the winner gets a hell of a lot of money and the loser gets a lot of oil futures that he can't unload without losing his shirt, while we pay out the nose for them to play this stupid game in the meantime.
I would like to add that the death of 4,095 American soldiers is nothing.
Well, maybe the 30,000+ wounded and 40,000 or so that have already returned with mental issues makes it a little more interesting for you? We see a lot fewer deaths but more injuries owing to the more effective armor our soldiers wear now. An explosion that would have killed a soldier in Vietnam now "merely" takes his arm off. And all this for something that does jack-all to contribute to our national security, which is the *only* reason these guys should be subjected to the risk of losing life or limb.
As I remember, the court action was a civil sexual harassment suit against Clinton, and demonstrating a similar pattern of behavior with his other staff most definitely would have had some bearing on the credibility of Jones' accusations, would it not?
He swore "to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", and he's been pissing all over that document for the past seven years. Is that not good enough? He's come out and unashamedly said, "I know Congress passed this law with this language, but I'm not going to interpret it in accordance with the wishes of Congress. Rather, I'm going to do whatever the hell I feel like." He may not have lied under oath in a court of law, but don't you *dare* try to paint him as some upstanding champion for the American people with an unblemished record.
The real difference between Clinton and Bush is that Bush's people are too smart to let him get tripped up on the minutiae like Clinton did. I would say that Clinton certainly should have paid more for his perjury, but Bush needs to serve hard time for some of the stuff he's done.
All they have to do is say that they war powers they gave him after 9-11 don't include the ability to invent a new category of prisoner, denied both the constitutional protections of the accused criminal and the treaty protections of the POW.
They don't even have to do that. All they had to do was say "no more money" and cut his appropriations to the bare minimum needed to provide the necessary services and no more. All of Bush's blustery posturing and wild legal theories don't change the fact that Congress could have shut him down in a heartbeat, but they've chosen not to do so.
If you've got the phone turned off, you're not on the network and not using the service, are you?
Same here. I've been quite happy with my prepaid service (I usually buy 1000 minute blocks at a time, which will last me for 9-10 months on average), but then I have no need for data services, and *very* limited need for SMS. I'm one of the few people that actually use my phone just as a phone, and I see no need to pay a great deal of money for it.
Of course, your mileage may vary, and everyone's free to buy what they want, but I don't know very many people that truly *need* the "always there" connectivity that most monthly plans offer.
The only reason people choose the contract is because they perceive the initial costs as lower when in fact the costs over the lifetime of the quality of service received may be higher.
And because of that, we're stuck with this bullshit "standard" two-year contract because the cellular providers know that people will just swallow those costs and other restrictions in the contract and then rave about what a deal they got because of the phone subsidy. It's ludicrous.
Here's a question - how many of those cellular contracts require you to submit to binding arbitration, even though it's almost *never* in your interest to do so? How many of them offer a pro-rated discount on your monthly rate for the time that the phone is not on the network (phone turned off, bad reception, etc.)? The contracts are so one-sided it's comical.
If there's one thing they've figured out, it's that their user base is _never_ going to "turn on them".
That's not entirely true - I consider myself something of a former Apple fanboy, but after the streak of hardware problems I've had over the past few years, the Apple systems I have are being replaced by commodity PC hardware as they die. The only Apple machine I regularly use now is my iPod, and when the wife's MacBook dies, it's almost certainly going to be replaced with non-Apple hardware as well.
the alternative was a pat-down by an officer.
i.e. another form of warrantless search where no probable cause exists that is allowed "because it's just too important not to do it!"
Article 6 of the Constitution might be relevant here:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (emphasis mine)
I would agree that this sounds like a First Amendment issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if the courts pull out Article 6 and wave it in everyone's face if the treaty becomes a reality.
Ugh, I can't stand this awful humor anymore. Go take a powder.
And in how many of them did the passengers resist as opposed to sitting there like sheep?
One might even go so far to say that the perceived threat of terrorism is such that it's making people more accepting of the idea of a much more extensive armed government presence in their everyday lives, because it will "protect them".
It's disappointing that this is modded flamebait when it represents how a lot of people feel. Guess some people aren't grown-up enough to moderate objectively.
The current Democratic Congress that replaced the last Republican one also said they were diametrically opposed to what's been going on, and they've done exactly squat about it after having two years to work on it. Republicans and Democrats are equally useless in my book - they're both about promoting their own self-interests on the backs of the populace, and heaven forbid they introduce any legislation that might actually benefit anyone other than their fountains o' funding.