Who the hell?
Name:
Kurt
Age:
24 (actual); 5-500 (mental)
Searchify...
Search zee archives:
Latest obscenities...
Ending the Reign of Lobbyists and Political Bribery
Ending the holy war between Macs and PCs
Letter from God
Three new steps to avoiding getting winter plagues
Never, ever buy Microsoft Dynamics RMS
If you liked WWJD, then you'll love WIJD...
UK lawmakers fail at internets, lawmaking
Thursday, February 2 2012
Ending the holy war between Macs and PCs
Sunday, December 26 2010
Letter from God
Sunday, December 26 2010
Three new steps to avoiding getting winter plagues
Sunday, October 17 2010
Never, ever buy Microsoft Dynamics RMS
Thursday, September 23 2010
If you liked WWJD, then you'll love WIJD...
Friday, July 23 2010
UK lawmakers fail at internets, lawmaking
Sunday, May 16 2010
Useless polls...
What are your last words before you die most likely going to be?
Archives
Archives
Archives
Categories...
Calendar
|
May '12 | |||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Syndicate This Blog
Blog Administration
Monday, May 8. 2006
More Fun With Bush: I don't like that part of the bill.
He's at it again... this time he's reaffirming that the constitution is just another piece of paper, by adding little notes to bills saying which parts are valid and which parts aren't, given his signature. From San Fransisco Gate's article:
Riiiiiiiight. It continues:
This is clearly unconstitutional. Anyone who has a civics textbook knows this. Personally, I think he should just go ahead and add riders to pronounce himself Emporer of the United States and get it over with. Here's the kicker... this sort of underhanded tactic started with the Republicans:
President Bush signed a military spending bill in December that included a hard-fought amendment banning the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of foreign prisoners. Then he put a statement in the Federal Register asserting his right to ignore the ban when necessary, in his judgment, to protect Americans from terrorism.Yes, that's right, he basically was like "sure, I'll sign this into law, but I still get to do whatever the hell I want."
Riiiiiiiight. It continues:
In March, Bush signed a renewal of search and surveillance provisions of the USA Patriot Act and said at a public ceremony that civil liberties would be protected by a series of new amendments. Then he quietly inserted another statement in the Federal Register that virtually nullified one of those amendments, a requirement that the administration report to Congress on the FBI's use of its powers under the Patriot Act to seize library, bookstore and business records.
This is clearly unconstitutional. Anyone who has a civics textbook knows this. Personally, I think he should just go ahead and add riders to pronounce himself Emporer of the United States and get it over with. Here's the kicker... this sort of underhanded tactic started with the Republicans:
Much of the theory behind signing statements can be traced back 20 years to a Reagan administration effort to regain presidential prerogatives lost to Congress after the Watergate scandal of the 1970s. Future Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, then a Justice Department lawyer, was among the advocates for a new role for traditionally obscure bill-signing statements.
ScaLito. Yes, and HE'S Chief Justice now, and he's got Scalia and Thomas to back him up. Who's next?
It just goes to show that more and more, our country is resembing World War II Italy and Germany. We invade countries for our own gain, discriminate against our own citizens, build prison camps for "terrorists," and above all, business runs our country. Soon, the line between "signing statements" and law will be nonexistant, and that day might just be around the corner. Then, my friends, we will have a dictatorship, and on that day, not only will we be repeating history, we'll be the bad guys.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Considering that ALL this started under Clinton -- both the surveillance in question (do a search on "Project Echelon". Add "Politech", if you want a specific source that I know of) AND the supposed (not yet demonstrated as actual fact) "rendition of foreign suspects into other hands less likely to follow "the polite rules"
(http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/although-bush-is-blasted-for-rendition.html
)
*Where were your complaints then*?
Yes, Clinton started BOTH of these "unconstitutional" activities, not Bush, and did so with (pre-911) FAR less justification to argue in favor of them. He ALSO contended that they were totally Constitutional.
(And yes, I will HAPPILY point to where I objected to Project Echelon waaaay back when)
*I don't claim which way they are*, I can see (after 911) how they may be necessary if not desirable, and how they may or may not be in keeping with the Constitution (the primary basis for argument is that foreign nationals are NOT protected by the civil rights specs of the Constitution, and, in both cases, they are involved in the supposedly unConstitutional acts in question).
I just have a problem with this partisan CRAP that makes it sound like BUSH initiated this garbage instead of the Great Hero Clinton, and how it's soooooo horrible that BUSH is doing all this violating of the Constitution that *started under Clinton*.
In other words, if Gore had won in 2000 (hint to all: He Didn't), you'd have no problem with any of this crap, because it would be a Democrat doing it.
It's ONLY because it's a Republican that it matters to you.
That's hypocritical bullshit.
(http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/although-bush-is-blasted-for-rendition.html
)
*Where were your complaints then*?
Yes, Clinton started BOTH of these "unconstitutional" activities, not Bush, and did so with (pre-911) FAR less justification to argue in favor of them. He ALSO contended that they were totally Constitutional.
(And yes, I will HAPPILY point to where I objected to Project Echelon waaaay back when)
*I don't claim which way they are*, I can see (after 911) how they may be necessary if not desirable, and how they may or may not be in keeping with the Constitution (the primary basis for argument is that foreign nationals are NOT protected by the civil rights specs of the Constitution, and, in both cases, they are involved in the supposedly unConstitutional acts in question).
I just have a problem with this partisan CRAP that makes it sound like BUSH initiated this garbage instead of the Great Hero Clinton, and how it's soooooo horrible that BUSH is doing all this violating of the Constitution that *started under Clinton*.
In other words, if Gore had won in 2000 (hint to all: He Didn't), you'd have no problem with any of this crap, because it would be a Democrat doing it.
It's ONLY because it's a Republican that it matters to you.
That's hypocritical bullshit.
Lol, you know, reading the article helps. It started under Reagan, numbnuts. Who's being partisan now? :)
By the way, if you search my blog (that little white box over on the left) you'll realize I don't defend Clinton anywhere. In fact, I even somewhat make fun of his wife in wired's "how the media corrupted children" article. And even worse for your argument, although I consider myself a democrat for voting reasons, I'm really more toward the independent realm of my views, incorporating various aspects of many parties, including the Green party. Sorry for busting your partisan bubble.
Though, in all honesty, I'd rather a dictator who's pro-equality, pro-environment, and anti-war than a dictator who's the exact opposite. So, in one respect, you're correct. I'd rather Gore or Clinton as a dictator. They, at least, have never fucked over this country as badly as Bush has. By the way, are you still part of his 30%? :P
"Where were my complaints back then?" I was in middle school, dumbass. Do the math. Sorry that I was more concerned about growing hair on my balls and having sex during that period than you. snicker ;)
By the way, if you search my blog (that little white box over on the left) you'll realize I don't defend Clinton anywhere. In fact, I even somewhat make fun of his wife in wired's "how the media corrupted children" article. And even worse for your argument, although I consider myself a democrat for voting reasons, I'm really more toward the independent realm of my views, incorporating various aspects of many parties, including the Green party. Sorry for busting your partisan bubble.
Though, in all honesty, I'd rather a dictator who's pro-equality, pro-environment, and anti-war than a dictator who's the exact opposite. So, in one respect, you're correct. I'd rather Gore or Clinton as a dictator. They, at least, have never fucked over this country as badly as Bush has. By the way, are you still part of his 30%? :P
"Where were my complaints back then?" I was in middle school, dumbass. Do the math. Sorry that I was more concerned about growing hair on my balls and having sex during that period than you. snicker ;)
> "Where were my complaints back then?" I was in middle school, dumbass. Do the math.
>> 12 to 42; average 21
So, you're twelve right now, right? Can you try and act something like, oh, at least 25? I'm assuming you're actually 21.
Need I explain to you the concept of a rhetorical question?
You succeed once more in dodging the real question, which is that this is entirely partisan bullshit. The people whining about this (most of whom WEREN'T in middle school) are almost entirely people who had nothing bad to say when Clinton was doing it.
> Lol, you know, reading the article helps. It started under Reagan, numbnuts.
Did it?
Did it really?
Where, precisely, did this information come from?
You refer to "the article", but you don't mention the specific subject, since two related ones were being dealt with...
Are we talking about the actual link I gave, because I didn't happen to see any reference to Reagan -- either there or in the linked articles, and I just went back and checked. There wasn't any reference to Reagan there that I saw, but perhaps I missed it.
Link and quote, please.
Or did this tie to Project Echelon in an unclear way? Some article you found via search?
Thanks for managing to not actually cite a source, if that was the case. What was that in the previous thread about responding with "research"?
---
If you want to debate the actual Constitutionality of either activity, then say so. I tend to agree more with you in the sense of its undesirability, even though I suspect it IS Constitutional (esp. since many Constitutional scholars argue that it is, and I can follow their arguments reasonably enough that I suspect they are, unfortunately, correct), but can be honest enough to take the Devil's Advocate side of the matter.
I believe you can definitely make the case that it is outside the spirit of what one might call "being American" but not that it is actually against the laws of the land, unfortunately.
And if that is the case, then your approach is fully wrongheaded. You make Bush into a devil when he is at most a charlatan. And, frankly, I'm not worried about what will be done with these powers *now*, but 20 years from now, after they've been twisted by legal manipulations to do things they were never argued into acceptability for. See Statutes, Rico:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
That's a very different problem and requires a much more complex approach towards dealing with it. And claiming it's unConstitutional when it isn't is counterproductive.
There is a vast difference between "it's unConstitutional" and "I don't like it at all" -- even if the latter is a particularly well-founded attitude.
>> 12 to 42; average 21
So, you're twelve right now, right? Can you try and act something like, oh, at least 25? I'm assuming you're actually 21.
Need I explain to you the concept of a rhetorical question?
You succeed once more in dodging the real question, which is that this is entirely partisan bullshit. The people whining about this (most of whom WEREN'T in middle school) are almost entirely people who had nothing bad to say when Clinton was doing it.
> Lol, you know, reading the article helps. It started under Reagan, numbnuts.
Did it?
Did it really?
Where, precisely, did this information come from?
You refer to "the article", but you don't mention the specific subject, since two related ones were being dealt with...
Are we talking about the actual link I gave, because I didn't happen to see any reference to Reagan -- either there or in the linked articles, and I just went back and checked. There wasn't any reference to Reagan there that I saw, but perhaps I missed it.
Link and quote, please.
Or did this tie to Project Echelon in an unclear way? Some article you found via search?
Thanks for managing to not actually cite a source, if that was the case. What was that in the previous thread about responding with "research"?
---
If you want to debate the actual Constitutionality of either activity, then say so. I tend to agree more with you in the sense of its undesirability, even though I suspect it IS Constitutional (esp. since many Constitutional scholars argue that it is, and I can follow their arguments reasonably enough that I suspect they are, unfortunately, correct), but can be honest enough to take the Devil's Advocate side of the matter.
I believe you can definitely make the case that it is outside the spirit of what one might call "being American" but not that it is actually against the laws of the land, unfortunately.
And if that is the case, then your approach is fully wrongheaded. You make Bush into a devil when he is at most a charlatan. And, frankly, I'm not worried about what will be done with these powers *now*, but 20 years from now, after they've been twisted by legal manipulations to do things they were never argued into acceptability for. See Statutes, Rico:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
That's a very different problem and requires a much more complex approach towards dealing with it. And claiming it's unConstitutional when it isn't is counterproductive.
There is a vast difference between "it's unConstitutional" and "I don't like it at all" -- even if the latter is a particularly well-founded attitude.
Okay, well I'm sick of your shit. You obviously can't read and you obviously don't understand the futility of your actions. But then again, you can't see this now, can you? Right now, you're trying to visit my site, and all you're getting is an image of TubGirl. How sad. In your words, "Whack" and "I win." :)
Ah yes, and for anyone who was still reading that guy's garbage, the "article" I was referring to was the original article that started this shit, the SFGate one (link at the start of the article). Search for "reagan" and you'll see what I was talking about. :P
Currently...
Feeling:
By The Way...
Misc...
Site powered by:
Personal:
Everything else:
Personal:
Everything else:
