Lets Discuss the Press

[CSpindizzy]

lol: lol:

Or is it funny after all? :blink:

 

[OWB]

lol: lol:

Or is it funny after all? :blink:

I would say it's funny until you actually put some thought into it. Then it kind of leans towards the frightening side.

 

[vader]

*Raises Hand* Me me me me me me! Pick me.

Hell, I'll let you be emperor. Just point me to the problems you want taken care of.

I'm a problem solver if nothing else.

 

[OWB]

Sweet, do I get one of those cool looking hats? Also if it's not asking to much, I would like to speak with a British accent. :biggrin2:

 

[CSpindizzy]

You might need some skin cream though....the wrinkles are seriously an issue.

 

[vader]

You might need some skin cream though....the wrinkles are seriously an issue.

Who needs looks when you have the mind trick?

 

[therealUT]

LOL. Nice try. If taken care of me means police state and a President who can do what he wants any time he wants then yes. I am 'taken care of' I'd rather be on the libertarian (lower case or uppercase) side of this argument any day of the week. Trusting everything into one person is what gets societies in trouble. People trusted in Nixon and were burned. People trusted in Clinton and were burned. And frankly it was over issues not even closely related to Constitutional rights as what this President has done. If realUT wants to put all of the power of government into one branch then so be it. Let it be known that his whole argument is against everything this nation was founded on. I myself choose to be on the side of the Founding Fathers. he can choose to be on the side of tyranny.

I am not on the side of tyranny. I am simply stating that I cannot fault GWB for this. Congress gave him absolute power to conduct the war on terror, how he sees fit. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Our congressional representatives should have had more foresight than they did. Also, it is up to the Dems, and those opposed to the way that Bush is handling the war, to push this into the Judicial Branch so that it can then check the absolute power afforded to the executive branch right now.

You state that the executive branch should not make allegations against the media if they are not going to move to indict, then people should not make allegations against the Bush administration without moving towards the courts. I have a feeling that any Supreme Court Justice would limit the wording of the congressional act I noted earlier in this thread. However, the Supreme Court Justices may not limit it if it is not presented before them.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I am not on the side of tyranny. I am simply stating that I cannot fault GWB for this. Congress gave him absolute power to conduct the war on terror, how he sees fit. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Our congressional representatives should have had more foresight than they did. Also, it is up to the Dems, and those opposed to the way that Bush is handling the war, to push this into the Judicial Branch so that it can then check the absolute power afforded to the executive branch right now.

You state that the executive branch should not make allegations against the media if they are not going to move to indict, then people should not make allegations against the Bush administration without moving towards the courts. I have a feeling that any Supreme Court Justice would limit the wording of the congressional act I noted earlier in this thread. However, the Supreme Court Justices may not limit it if it is not presented before them.

Congress gave him absolute power? Not sure where in the Constitution that Congres had the ability to give any branch absolute power. You sound as if our government is the Reichstag of 1933. Congress cannot write over absolute power. They did not give Bush aboslute power. The Executive Branch is still limited to what it can do by the Constitution. Bush can't just go out and do whatever he wants now. You are basically saying that Bush has full control over our nation and has carte blanche to do as he pleases. Don't think so.

 

[therealUT]

Congress gave him absolute power? Not sure where in the Constitution that Congres had the ability to give any branch absolute power. You sound as if our government is the Reichstag of 1933. Congress cannot write over absolute power. They did not give Bush aboslute power. The Executive Branch is still limited to what it can do by the Constitution. Bush can't just go out and do whatever he wants now. You are basically saying that Bush has full control over our nation and has carte blanche to do as he pleases. Don't think so.

He still has not done anything that is unconstitutional. Sure, his administration and the NSA bypassed FISC, however, there is a great deal of precedent concerning warrantless searches on the basis of national security. In fact, the Supreme Court has never upheld a challenge against the gov't concerning wiretapping and national security.

 

[CSpindizzy]

He still has not done anything that is unconstitutional. Sure, his administration and the NSA bypassed FISC, however, there is a great deal of precedent concerning warrantless searches on the basis of national security. In fact, the Supreme Court has never upheld a challenge against the gov't concerning wiretapping and national security.

FISA laws clearly spell out how the Executive should act in these cases. It's not a matter of 'bypassing'. It is a matter of ignoring law. The Legislative Branch created this law and the Executive Branch signed this into law.

As for wiretapping cases, it is hard for people to challenge wiretapping when the full aspect is hidden from the public eye. There is this grey area where you cannot challenge what you fully don't know about. That is why there is a rush to plug leaks. They know that if the full scope of what they do is brought out, they'd be challenged and no doubt would lose.

You already have the FISA courts circumvented and that law even makes it a felony to circumvent their courts. You have the constitutional duty to brief key members of the Congressional leadership being ignored. Even Rep Hoekstra as a Republican saying the White House failed to notify him of two leaked concepts. it's sad when the only way you can find things out that the White House is supposed to brief you on is through the front page of the NYT.

Also you have the inherent powers issues. Does Bush even have these broad ranging powers he pretends to have? He's already been beaten back on two SCOTUS cases in the past two years regarding his detainment powers of prisoners, enemy combatants, or whatever the description of the day is.

So while you claim it is just a wiretapping issue, there are numerous constitutional issues at hand and so far Bush is losing some key ones he thought he had in the bag.

 

[volinbham]

So while you claim it is just a wiretapping issue, there are numerous constitutional issues at hand and so far Bush is losing some key ones he thought he had in the bag.

I don't blame him for trying. If the actions are found to be unconstitutional, they will be stopped unless laws are changed to allow them (e.g. Sup Court recommendation in Gitmo situation).