In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Something to Ponder: Bush

HAIRYHAIRY Member Posts: 23,606
edited April 2003 in General Discussion
Forwarded from a friend:


I wrote this on Sunday and sent it to one friend who had questioned Bush's sanity. It took me so long to write it I thought I might share it with some of the rest of you.

I am not the person most receptive to psychological typing, but I think there's a condition where delusional notions of power (megalomania) become so grandiose that a person's functioning is impaired. This syndrome appears most frequently in individuals who see the world starkly in terms of black or white and who are suspicious of nuanced or deep, conditional thinking. Dubya has always struck me as that kind of person, ever since his Yale days when the dominant ethos in New Haven was anti-war and anti-establishment, and Silver Spoon George, knowing enough at least to realize that his heritage was in jeopardy if he went along with his fellow students, chose instead to be a cheerleader and a Skull 'n Bones secret society type. Ever since then, Dubya has been suspicious of intellectuals and has adopted the protective coloration of "Hail fellow, Well met!" to cloak his conspicuous lack of dendritic connections. Remember, the chaplain at Yale during those years was William Sloane Coffin, who was actively counseling draft resistance. The Panther trial for the torture of Alex Rackley was going on, and activists and Panther supporters from all over were converging on New Haven to defend the accused killers.

Since Yale, Dubya has ascended in the worlds of business and politics despite his shortcomings, because he was handed entree that very few others ever got. He evaded the Vietnam War, which he supported, by hiding out AWOL from the Air National Guard. He got mega-loans from friends of Pappy to start his oil business and to buy the Houston Astros, the latter a very important move because, had he not been the public face of that baseball team, he would've never been able to make a credible run for Governor.

This ascendancy continued all the way to the White House; recall that American foreign policy intellectuals had to be dispatched to his farm after he won the Republican nomination, to tutor him in things like which countries were in Europe and which were in Asia, etc. Now he sits atop the globe as its most powerful citizen, never having once had to do anything for himself, and getting more and more arrogant every month, because unless someone is willing to inform the emperor that he has no clothes, the emperor will assume that it is his natural right and divine fiat that he be ruler. In this way, I fail to see any substantive difference between Dubya and Saddam Hussein; both were men of very modest accomplishments who ended up having more power than any one person should ever have over their citizens, and both use this power with the confidence of dullards, without conscience or regret.

BUT there's always a fatal flaw in this kind of power-wielding. Call it karmic retribution, or whatever you want, but very few historical figures who have suffered this malady have ever known when to stop, have ever understood how much hatred and resentment their smirking arrogance and cocksureness engenders among those that watch them in shock and awe. Hitler and Stalin over-reached, and I predict that Dubya will do the same. He may be hailed as a conquering hero next week or next month, but wait till Saddam is dead and gone, and civil war breaks out in Iraq between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds, with American soldiers as the only ameliorating force. If an American soldier feels like throwing hand grenades into officers' tents, how will the humiliated Iraqis react? (And what genius in Army personnel decided that it would be a good thing to send American Muslims to fight a war against Iraqi Muslims in the first place? There must be a lot of American Muslims seething because they have seen brothers and friends rounded up with no evidence against them in this country, because they have seen their kids spat upon by Christian patriots at school, because they have seen mosques shaken down by the FBI merely for being there.)

Bush's presidency was headed for disaster before 9/11; he had no foreign policy, a domestic agenda that would never be popular because he was dismantling many of the safety nets Americans have come to expect, a Luddite attitude on stem cell research and abortion rights, and a basic intolerance for anybody's opinion other than his own. It is frequently the mediocre among us who think they have great gifts, while the truly gifted often possess a humility because their intelligence is so nuanced that they realize how provisional it really is.

Now, I have no doubt that many in Dubya's circle are quite intelligent - the Cheneys and Powells and Perles. This is not to say that I agree with them, but they have at least mastered the vocabulary of global inter-connected politics in a way that George W. never shall. And they hide behind his skirts, accountable to no one except the Fool on the Hill. This seems to be a Republican strategy that emerged after Watergate. Every subsequent G.O.P. president has been an actor or a front man - Ford, Reagan, both Bushes - who takes the lightning strikes and allows their more sinister operators of real politik to empire-scheme without accountability. This is just a more modern variation on Goebbel's "big lie" strategy. And it has enabled them to rule USA for 22 of the last 34 years despite their minority status as a party.

But Bush has rolled a big set of dice into the Middle East, and (exactly parallel with his father, who enjoyed unprecedented popularity after the Persian Gulf War, only to squander it and lose an election he should have, as an incumbent, won) will bask in the glory of corporate media-glow for awhile, but when some ugly realities begin surfacing in a year or so, America may well decide that one term is all that he deserves (and, indeed, that term was itself fraudulently obtained).

Among all potential candidates, if I could choose the next president, it would be Gary Hart, who seems to have understood the terrorism issue well before most of the rest of us did, and who seems to have been humbled enough by the Donna Rice fiasco to not succumb to the arrogance of power that affects most viable candidates (including the Clintons).

It may not matter. America's image abroad may be so irreparably harmed by Tex-* adventurism that nobody short of Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. could ever hope to repair our relations with the citizens of the world. That is the tragic part. With our wealth and technological innovation, we could be transforming the world post-USSR into a global democracy laboratory, fueled by the promise of no more starvation, no more second-class citizens. We could have enlisted Third World assistance in facing grave long-range problems (trans-global diseases, global warming consequences, huge inequality gaps, the pre-civilization impulses for racism and genocide) but those who would advocate this are demonized and belittled by those who would preserve the wealth for their one percent cohort.

Enough for one Sunday.

Deane


It's not what you know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know that just ain't so!
Resident Pyrrhonist

Comments

  • Jody CommanderJody Commander Member Posts: 855 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Someone needs a hug...........or a laxative.
  • nordnord Member Posts: 6,106
    edited November -1
    More like the laxitive took effect! But why dump on us???

    Nord
  • dheffleydheffley Member Posts: 25,000
    edited November -1
    I'd rather have that megalomaniac as president than the wimp who ran against him.

    Measure twice, cut once.
    calipers_open_close_md_wht.gif
    Empty the clip!
    smoking_gun_md_wht.gif
  • ElMuertoMonkeyElMuertoMonkey Member Posts: 12,898
    edited November -1
    dheffley,
    Meglomaniacal or not, we'll see how fond we all are of Bush when the economy's been shattered by the war and our freedom and liberty have been taken from us in the form of the various Patriot Acts.
    And I'm pretty sure a few Germans thought your way too a while back. "Oh better Hitler than that doddering old fool Hindenburg."
  • lurkerlurker Member Posts: 414 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    El Puto Monkey,

    What's with you? Are you pissed at the world?

    I've read some of your posts, and you have the most negative thinking I've ever seen on this board (except for 1 other person).

    I'm thinking that you might also be that 1 other person.

    You have a problem with authority it appears, and try to knock them down to your level.

    Is your life so bad that you have to create another one on this board?

    Sheesh! Get a life, man!
  • ElMuertoMonkeyElMuertoMonkey Member Posts: 12,898
    edited November -1
    Nope, I only use one screen name. And if I'm negative, it's only because there are so many idiots running things, it's hard to see anything positive.
    But, okay, let me be positive for once:
    (1) I'm positive that burying your head in the sand about everything that Bush is doing to rob us of our freedoms just so you won't appear to be "unpatriotic" is not the smartest thing to do. You can support our military and not agree with the commander-in-chief.
    (2) I'm positive the economy is going downhill and gaining speed. Consumer confidence is low and not improving, unemployment is up and staying there, and stock markets world round are reflecting that. And paying for the war will make the bribe we offered to Turkey look like pocket change.

    See? Already I'm being more positive.

    "Get a life?" Oh whatever shall I say in reply to such a stunningly original put-down? How's about, "I would reply to that, but matching wits with a third-grader is beneath me."
  • familyguyfamilyguy Member Posts: 1,349 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Oh my word. What is the world coming to? I'm about to agree with DeadMonkeyMeat.....

    Yes, Bush's approval will slip when this is all over and the economy becomes a bigger focus in the news than the war. Remember his dad?
    (but I still like him a lot better than Al-icreatedtheinternet-Gore) I'm in favor of this action, but unless he has a "battle plan" for what comes next, he's in trouble.

    Yes, our rights are being eroded by these acts being passed in the name of combating terrorism. It's called a slippery slope. Who was it that said "A man that will trade liberty for safety deserves neither"?



    Got a new gun for my ex-wife.....pretty good trade, huh?
  • chunkstylechunkstyle Member Posts: 2,463 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I am greatly in agreement with HAIRY. (Though I would have not called Texas "Tex-*".) That said, I also agree with this:

    > "I'd rather have that megalomaniac as president than the wimp who ran against him."

    To me, Gore was no better. (Really, the whole DNC thing is a non-strategy, including that horny Arkansas hillbilly.) There's a dearth of real leadership out there. I feel that the Iraq thing has gotta bite Bush on the butt in the end. But who would run against him? Look at the Democrats saying they would like to run. The only one I could even come close to supporting is Dean, who's gotta be the least likely to survive the weeding process.

    Iraqi: "Is it true that only 13% of American kids can find Iraq on a map?"
    American reporter: "Yes, but all 13% are Marines"

    "I think life should be more like TV. All of life's problems ought to be solved within 30 minutes with simple homilies. All our desires should be instantly gratified. Women should always wear tight clothes, and men should carry powerful handguns. Of course, if life was really like that, what would we watch on TV?"

    - Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes)
  • interstatepawnllcinterstatepawnllc Member Posts: 9,390
    edited November -1
    Ponder THIS!![:D]

    "If your gonna be stupid, go find a democrat."
  • whiteclouderwhiteclouder Member Posts: 10,574 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
    This syndrome appears most frequently in individuals who see the world starkly in terms of black or white and who are suspicious of nuanced or deep, conditional thinking. Dubya has always struck me as that kind of person,

    I got this far and quit. Nuanced (sic) and deep thinking are diametrically opposed concepts. Not only that, nuanced is not even a word. The person who wrote this simply loves to see their words on the screen. Pure tripe!

    Clouder..
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    ElMuerto-One thing I have noticed around here, is if you are not lock step with many others who use this board, you are often accused of being
    1-Some other poster using an alias
    2.Mad at the world
    3.Think in a negative manner
    4. Have a problem with authority
    This is especially true if you do not toe the GW line.
    Lurker-Do you have some type of playbook that all you Bush lovers share, to counter criticism of your beloved GW. Geez, you guys are like a broken record. Im beginning to think all you cheerleaders are one person using several aliases.

    "It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
    -George Washington
  • SkyWatcherSkyWatcher Member Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I have to say that I have enjoyed 'Monkey's contribution around here. He often offers a unique and valid insight to a lot of the issues we discuss. I don't know if he is mad at things or not, but I do have to say that a lot of things make me mad too, I just don't open up as much as some to "talk" about it...hey El Muerto ... keep ''em comin'.

    To whom much is given, much is expected.
  • capecodcapecod Member Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    White Clouder's opinion that the post is "tripe" is an understatement of the statement. The initial post is pure, unadulerated "crap". Unlike many on this board, I can't foretell what the future will hold - but I do know this, I'm damn glad George Bush is our President.
    John

    Member NRA & GOA

    Give Me A Home Where The Buffalo Roam - And I'll Show You A Filthy Living Room!
  • lurkerlurker Member Posts: 414 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Could it be that Salzo and El Puto Monkey are the same person?

    BTW, ask a hispanic what Puto means.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by lurker
    Could it be that Salzo and El Puto Monkey are the same person?

    Oh that stupid game again- why is it that some around here feel the need to accuse a poster of using an alias. As popeye says; "I am what I am(or who I am)".

    "It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
    -George Washington
  • steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    To those of you who are new to this board, Hairy is pro arab, has always been pro arab, and will always hate and abuse anyone with the guts to stand up and fight the arabs (Bush 1 and 2). Salzo pretty much hates everybody in authority (ask him about the horrible Abe Lincoln). George Bush is fighting a war against terrorism. I proudly voted for him and I support his efforts.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    ...and Steve 45 is a Cheerleading robot for George Bush. He gets upset if you say anything critical of his sweetey, GW-so be sensetive to his blind love for elpresidente.

    "It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
    -George Washington
  • steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I remember the World Trade Center. I remember G. Bush declaring a war on terrorism. And now hes doing it. I respect a politician that does what he says.
  • RembrandtRembrandt Member Posts: 4,486 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Steve,...don't mind Salzo, he's from a state where crooked politics is a way of life....it's only natural he'd think everyone else operates the same way....[:D]
  • idsman75idsman75 Member Posts: 13,398 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    All I had to read was the bit about "Skull 'n' Bones" and all of the author's credibility went down the toilet. "Skull 'n' Bones" was and is nothing more than some secret little fraternalistic boy's club. Who cares? The folks that believe in the Skull 'n' Bones conspiracy theories are the same types that ate up every last word they heard on Coast-to-Coast with Art Bell. Grow up.

    As far as all of the "silver platter" bullcrap is concerned, it's the same drivel that all of the rest of the liberal elitist class-warfare politicians whine about when an elimination of the inheritance tax is proposed--just before they get into their inherited limousines and go home to their house on the hill. Daddy gave him money. So the hell what. He campaigned with that money. So the hell what. The class-warfare elitist liberals do the same thing.

    You want to see a nation weakened? You want to see a nation opened to the likes of Osama and the rest of the Osama-wanna-bees out there? (That's right, Osama ain't the only bad guy that wants to destroy you). Revive good ol' Al Gore. For those of you that think we had any other choice besides Bush and Gore....go ahead and take another hit off that glass ****. Watch your nation crumble. It is better for a nation to tighten its collective belts while the rest of its enemies watch that nation lay low one despot at a time and cringe in fear while watching. That is far better than a nation that lives high on the hog while it becomes slow and fat from the blinding gluttony in which it indulges. Close your eyes because you won't see it coming and the bulge in your wallet will anesthesize you beyond your ability to recognize the dagger that is pointed at your heart. I'm tired of being concerned with the opinions of other nations. Show me a nation that is more free and offers more opportunity. I am tired of trying to understand our enemies. I am tired of trying to get our enemies to like and respect us. I wouldn't mind seeing a little fear in their eyes. Let them fear us. That is all that they understand. This "author" is of the same ilk that would yield our nation's egalitarian ethos to the will of a group of despots like the United Nations--the same individuals that would like to see the American Citizen disarmed. Am I the only one that finds it ironic that the word "egalitarian" finds its roots in the French language? I guess some people are more equal than others. How Orwellian.

    This so-called "author" is so concerned about our image abroad. He would rather have his ears tickled with incessant lies and deceit because he can feel warm and have a full belly while he sleeps...while the devil is at his doorstep. Maybe he better look back into history and ponder the meaning and context of the words "useful idiot". Then again, he should be familiar with that term because its roots are intermingled with the roots of the Cold War. Apparently the "author" is unable to transition from a Cold War worldview to a more contemporary perspective. Then again, his grasp on high school history must have slipped. He paints the American Muslim and the Islamo-facists that seek our demise with the very same brush. He probably does not remember the first and second generation German-Americans who fought valiantly during WWII. His very mention of the subject is a spit upon the selfless Muslim brothers with whom I have served in the United States Army.

    At the end of the day I can give this individual no more credibility than the seminar radio talk-show callers who always start their diatribes with the same garbage. They are always so easy to spot. They may as well tattoo "useful idiot" on their foreheads after they finish reading the latest issue of "The New York Village Post".
  • steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Funny Rembrandt, Salzo's no problem. He seems to TRY to tear down all authority figures equally.
  • LowriderLowrider Member Posts: 6,587
    edited November -1
    Anybody else think it's funny that the monkey says he worries about the economy but has, on several occasions, spoken out in favor of unchecked illegal immigration? Illegal immigration being one of the biggest threats to our economy.

    Lord Lowrider the LoquaciousMember:Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets She was only a fisherman's daughter,But when she saw my rod she reeled.
  • Jungle JimJungle Jim Member Posts: 301 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    X Ring, Idsman 75!

    Hooah!

    "De Oppresso Liber"
  • stanmanstanman Member Posts: 3,052
    edited November -1
    Rembrandt,
    Just curious.
    What state do you come from where crooked politics ISN'T a way of life??[?][:)]

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than to have a French division behind me."
    Gen. Patton
  • interstatepawnllcinterstatepawnllc Member Posts: 9,390
    edited November -1
    Hey Salzo, you forgot the term LOSER, as in "The miserable, stinking, Stalinist, anti-authority, welfare loving, tax-coveting, dimocraptic losers" You pukes make me wanna blow chunks.[:D]

    "If your gonna be stupid, go find a democrat."
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Interstatepawn- Let me fill you in-I aint a stalinist, or a welfare lover, or a tax coveter, or a democrat-I am as far removed from those things you mentioned as you can possibly be. George Bush is more of those things you mentioned than I could ever be-but you are blind to his liberal agenda cause those pom poms are blocking your vision.

    I was watching CSPAN a few months ago, and Ron Paul was the guest. In case you do not know who Ron Paul is, let me fill you in. He is the most constitutionally oriented congressman in the house. Before he votes on any legislation, he first considers the constitutionality of the legislation. There is no one in the modern body politic that is more constitutionally conscious than Mr. Paul. Mr. Paul is a true constitutional conservative. THe GOA, gives him an A+ rating, not many congressmen can boast that.
    Anyway, Mr. Paul objects to the war with Iraq, because congress never declared war. Being as constitutionally conscious as he is, he feels it is the duty of congress to declare war. You should have heard the cheerleaders slamming Mr. Paul. All these Bush robots were calling in, calling him a liberal, a welfare lover, you know the drill.
    It was truly hysterical. All these cheerleaders, who support a liberal big government president, are calling in and calling Mr. Paul a liberal-like many around here, they think that conservatism=anything George Bush stands for, and if you oppose anything from the liberal president, George Bush, you are a liberal. All these cheerleading robot nitwits, who support the liberal agenda of Mr. Bush, are calling the only true constitutional conservative a liberal.Orwell would be proud of this doublespeak.

    "It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
    -George Washington
  • interstatepawnllcinterstatepawnllc Member Posts: 9,390
    edited November -1
    Wow, you bit. You guys like me,.....you REALLY like me.[:D]

    "If your gonna be stupid, go find a democrat."
  • idsman75idsman75 Member Posts: 13,398 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'll be accepting guesses with regards to what "****" stands for.
  • idsman75idsman75 Member Posts: 13,398 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Congress does not need to officially declare war to do what is being done now. I'm not even going to waste my time trying to duel a half-wit like Mr Paul who thinks that the President is acting illegally. Eleven members of Congress have already tried suing the President and the courts have thrown out the suits because he does have legal grounds for what is being done right now.

    I have a few MAJOR disagreements with certain elements of domestic policy but Mr. Paul has his head way up there.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I would NEVER believe that something is constitutional or unconstitutional, because the courts say it is.I know we have been conditioned to believe that the courts are the last words with respect to whether or not something is constitutional, but that just aint the case. They are as bad as the other branches of government, with respect to ignoring the constitution They are just playing the modern day checks and balances-washing the backs of the other branches of government, so that no one is accountable to anyone.
    Must I go through the list of ridiculous rulings by the courts? The one most recent was the ruling that under god in the pledge is unconstitutional. Nothing at all constitutional about that ruling.
    The courts might have dismissed the law suits pertaining to the constitutionality of the law, but that does not mean the law is constitutional-it just means they are looking out for the other branches of government.

    "It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
    -George Washington
  • steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    OK, I'll ask. Salzo what reasons do you have to call G. Bush a liberal?
  • HAIRYHAIRY Member Posts: 23,606
    edited November -1
    Salzo: Your quote: I would NEVER believe that something is constitutional or unconstitutional, because the courts say it is.I know we have been conditioned to believe that the courts are the last words with respect to whether or not something is constitutional, but that just aint the case."

    Since you wish to deny the validity of the rulings of our court system, what "authority" do you consider valid? What system of justice, if any, do you support?

    It's not what you know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know that just ain't so!
    Resident Pyrrhonist
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
    Salzo: Your quote: I would NEVER believe that something is constitutional or unconstitutional, because the courts say it is.I know we have been conditioned to believe that the courts are the last words with respect to whether or not something is constitutional, but that just aint the case."

    Since you wish to deny the validity of the rulings of our court system, what "authority" do you consider valid? What system of justice, if any, do you support?

    The people are the ultimate authority on whether or not an action by any branch of the government is constitutional. Thats not my opinion, that is what the constitution says. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the courts are the final arbiter on what is, and what is not constitutional. Quite the contrary, it says the people, via elected representation in congress are the final authority on whether or not an action is or is not constitutional.
    It is only recent history where we have been conditioned to believe that the branch of government that is the least accountable to the people, is the branch that has final word on what the constitution says. If the constitution is not enough proof of this, common sense should dictate that the founders would not set up a Republic form of government, which would have an unelected branch make decisions that the people should be making, via elected representation. The way it is now, the most removed branch of government dictates to the people what is and is not acceptable.
    This is not to say the courts assumed this power on their own. The other branches are more than willing to allow the courts this power, because it allows them to be free of accountability. "Hey dont blame me, I am just a congressman, the courts ruled that way, and there is nothing I can do about it". When the reality is, they can do something about it, but choose not to, so they do not have to have their feet placed near the fire on controversial political issues.
    A perfect example, is CFR. Rather than honor the oath to defend the constitution, and veto CFR, George Bush signed it, and said he would let the courts decide-even though he felt the legislation was unconstitutional. It is the presidents responsibility to defend the constitution, he chose to place the constitution in jeopardy by allowing the courts to rule on CFR. Why would Bush do this? If he vetoed the bill, he could have faced the wrath of the electorate. By passing it off to the courts, he absolves himself of any accountability.
    The "check" on congress, to prevent them from passing unconstitutional legislation is the president-the president is supposed to defend the constitution, he did not-he chose to ignore the responsibility and political danger alltogether, by passing it off to the courts to decide. The other check on Congress is the people, and that bothers congress-they do not want to be accountable for their actions, so they are perfectly willing to allow the unelected judicial branch make decisions that congress should be
    making. Politically, it is better for Congress to remove their responsibility, and pass it off to the branch that does not face elections-and that, in a nutshell is our modern day checks and balances. Each branch helps assure each other branch that accountability to the people will be minimal.
    Up until the middle of the las century, the court was the weakenst branch of government. Congress regularly ignored court rulings, cause it was understood, that congress was accountable to the people for their actions. This was the branch that was connected to the people, and this is the branch that the people can change when it misbehaves.
    Nowadays, the court is the most powerful branch, which is no accident. The courts can do whatever they want, and there aint a damn thing the people can do about it-they cant elect another judge next time around. Judges are now like Kings.
    Congreess loves it, the president loves it, the courts love it. And the people are too stupid to figure it out.

    "if the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them."
    Samual Adams

    "....in the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan(constitution) which directly impowers the courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution"
    -Alexander Hamilton Federalist 81

    "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privelege of their corps...And their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution has erected no such tribunal"
    -Thomas Jefferson

    "It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
    -George Washington
  • idsman75idsman75 Member Posts: 13,398 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Man I've tried hard to stir here. I even went so far as to use really offensive slang to describe a crack pipe but I guess you'd have to know the term in order to figure out what **** means. I did my best but nobody wants to screw with me. I'm going home and I'm taking my toys with me.
  • beachmaster73beachmaster73 Member Posts: 3,011 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Wow....Great thread!!!! Good points on both sides of the issue. Idsman gets an X-Ring on one side and dare I say an X-Ring goes to salzo for his unreconstructed Libertarian views???...Did I just do that? Oh yeah....Wall Street stock hint for the day..BUY General Dynamics stock!!! We are going to have to replace all those cruise missiles we expended on Baghdad!Beach
    I think I'm going to sit back and watch this thread continue to develop. Beach
  • HAIRYHAIRY Member Posts: 23,606
    edited November -1
    Salzo: Okay, you deny the third branch of our government, the other two being the Congress and the Legislative, as having validity. (Somewhere along the line, I understood the 3 of them provided a "check and balance" thereby preventing any one of them from imposing a dictatorship.)

    But you still didn't explain what system of justice you would accept insofar as you deny the court system. Vigilante justice? What is your belief?

    It's not what you know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know that just ain't so!
    Resident Pyrrhonist
  • ifishbajaifishbaja Member Posts: 73 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Didn't our President own the Texas Rangers? Wasn't he actually only a "part" owner of the team? Hmm, I thought Hairy had written that he owned the Houston Astros. The information about his baseball team were all over the news in the early days, and it makes me wonder. If someone could get mixed up about just a couple of baseball teams, what else might confuse him?
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
    Salzo: Okay, you deny the third branch of our government, the other two being the Congress and the Legislative, as having validity. (Somewhere along the line, I understood the 3 of them provided a "check and balance" thereby preventing any one of them from imposing a dictatorship.)

    But you still didn't explain what system of justice you would accept insofar as you deny the court system. Vigilante justice? What is your belief?



    I never said the judicial branch was invalid. I only said that they do not have the constitutional authority to be the final authority on what is and what is not constitutional. The purpose of the judiciary is to interpet the laws that the people have legislated. The purpose is NOT to create laws, or to shoot down the will of the people, whatever it is, as unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution gives them the authority to sit in judgement of the people, or to force their will on the people-their function is to interpet the laws that the people have enacted.
    You mentioned "checks and balances"- which is supposed to allow for the three branches of government to keep each other in check, with various constitutional provisions.
    It seems to me, that you believe that the system of "checks and balances" is a system where the judiciary "checks" the actions of the legislature, the executive, the states, the people, the school boards, etc. Thats not "checks and balances", that just "checks".
    May I ask what "check" the other branches of government have on the judiciary? You acknowledge a system of checks and balances, so you must acknowledge that there must be some type of check on the judiciary. What is it? I hope ou are not going to say that the executive and legislative appoint the judges-because that is in no way a check. The appointments of past administrations, in no way provides a "check" to present and future administrations, or to presnt or future congresses.
    So Hairy, explain who or what "checks" the judiciary.

    "It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
    -George Washington
  • HAIRYHAIRY Member Posts: 23,606
    edited November -1
    Salzo: The Legislature checks the Judiciary. Should the Court find previousl legislation "unconstitutional" the Legislature can, and has, pass appropriate legislation to bring that law into conformance with the Constitution.

    It's not what you know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know that just ain't so!
    Resident Pyrrhonist
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
    Salzo: The Legislature checks the Judiciary. Should the Court find previousl legislation "unconstitutional" the Legislature can, and has, pass appropriate legislation to bring that law into conformance with the Constitution.


    Hairy- I have to disagree. Your scenario is not a check at all. Your scenario places the legislator on a subservient level to the judiciary. Congress changing legislation to meet what the courts deem as constitutional, is not a check on the judiciary. What you propose as a check, does not bring the legislator in "conformance" with the constitution, it brings the legislator in conformance with the judiciary. What you propose as a check, still leaves all power in the hands of the judiciary.
    The constitution makes no mention of the above procedure, and the constitution does not allow the judiciary to have sole discretion over whether an act of congress, or the executive for that matter, is constitutional.
    THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION, THAT CAN BE CONSTRUED TO GIVE TO THE COURTS THE ABSOLUTE POWER TO BE THE JUDGES OF WHAT IS, AND WHAT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, OR GIVES THEM THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
    Quite the contrary, the constitution specifically has a provision that allows the legislative branch to keep the judiciary in check, and prevent them from assuming powers that constitutionally, they do not have.
    Article 3, section 2
    "In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS CONGRESS SHALL MAKE"

    If the courts want to stick their nose where it does not belong, congress has the constitutional authority to prevent it. If the courts rule on a case, and congress disagrees with the decision, or feels the court does not have jurisdiction, congress can step in and nullify the ruling. Of course, this no longer happens, because congress just assume defer their responsibility to the unelected branch-much better for them politically, cause they wont get their hands dirty with controversial political issues-just pass it off to the branch that does not have to worry about pissing off the people-its not like the people have any recourse.

    "It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
    -George Washington
Sign In or Register to comment.