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.
The ONLY way to obtain a judiciary review and judgement is to challenge an action. That has not been done, and until it has been, and adjudicated, what the NSA is doing is legal. Is what GW doing right for the country? That's an ideological question that will be decided by about three percent of the voters, the thinkers.
Question is, why have the President's actions not been challenged in the only place it really matters. Only history will tell us that, but I have my suspicions.
quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
The ONLY way to obtain a judiciary review and judgement is to challenge an action.
Yes, that is the only way to obtain a judgment of Constitutionality for the action itself; but what is in question is not the Constitutionality of the action but the manner and given cause under which that action was covertly implemented, and whether the President exceded his authority in doing so. This in no way requires Constituitonal judgment to decide, any more than it required Constitutional judgment to decide the propriety of Slick Willy getting head in the Oval Office. Either the President acted in accordance with his office or he didn't, and it does not take the Supreme Court to decide the matter: Either we're at war or we're not; either the President followed established protocol or did not.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
The ONLY way to obtain a judiciary review and judgement is to challenge an action.
Yes, that is the only way to obtain a judgment of Constitutionality for the action itself; but what is in question is not the Constitutionality of the action but the manner and given cause under which that action was covertly implemented, and whether the President exceded his authority in doing so. This in no way requires Constituitonal judgment to decide, any more than it required Constitutional judgment to decide the propriety of Slick Willy getting head in the Oval Office. Either the President acted in accordance with his office or he didn't, and it does not take the Supreme Court to decide the matter: Either we're at war or we're not; either the President followed established protocol or did not.
You recently chastised someone else for citing historical precedent to support their argument. Citing Clinton's foibles by comparing a "Oval Office indiscretion" to an act of war, I think, proves your point, and at the same time, shows us your feet are also of clay.
Whether the President acted within the law, (describe it as "in accordance with his office" if you'd like,) will be determined if and when it's challenged. Why he acted is an ideological question, a political one, one of protocol. Under our Constitution, there are avenues to resolve both issues.
quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
You recently chastised someone else for citing historical precedent to support their argument. Citing Clinton's foibles by comparing a * to an act of war, I think, proves your point, and at the same time, shows us your feet are also of clay.
The Clinton instance was not given for purpose of historical precedent, and you know it; it was given to illustrate how the actions of heads of state (no pun intended) do not require Judicial review to determine propriety.
quote:
Whether the President acted within the law, (describe it as "in accordance with his office" if you'd like,) will be determined if and when it's challenged. Why he acted is an ideological question, a political one, one of protocol. Under our Constitution, there are avenues to resolve both issues.
Merely providing iteration of your view to sidestep the issue is not a substitute for counter-argument. At last check, ideological and political reasons for actions do not supersede or otherwise override established protocol. Are you saying that they do? Your claim that an excess of power is not an excess of power unless it is first challenged and determined to be so wrongly supposes there is no clear line of demarcation to begin with. This is simply not the case. There are established procedures for implementing the type of action in question; whether these procedures were followed is not in question even by the White House, so what additional purpose would challenge serve? You are arguing that the President has occasions and the right to piss on protocol as he sees fit. I say he does not. And that is the real and only issue here.
The Atlantic magazine recently ran a decent story of an accused [and sentenced] "terrorist".
The Education of Ali Al-Timimi
Describing him as a "rock star" of Islamic fundamentalism in the United States, the government sent an American Muslim scientist to prison for life. But has justice been served?
by Milton Viorst
The role of the executive has slowly changed from one of almost limitless authority to what we have had for the last few decades which is more of a business type arrangement where the executive implements the desires of the board[congress]. And the judiciary acts as the SEC to make sure the implementation is done by the book. The present administration has made it clear that they wish to bring the presidency back to the times when the president was akin to a king and dictated his desires to the middle management[congress] who would then implement the wishes of the president under the scrutiny of the judiciary.
I think it is much better to have congressional oversight and involvement in both the planning and the implementation of a chosen course of action.
quote:Originally posted by bigdaddyjunior
The role of the executive has slowly changed from one of almost limitless authority to what we have had for the last few decades which is more of a business type arrangement where the executive implements the desires of the board[congress]. And the judiciary acts as the SEC to make sure the implementation is done by the book. The present administration has made it clear that they wish to bring the presidency back to the times when the president was akin to a king and dictated his desires to the middle management[congress] who would then implement the wishes of the president under the scrutiny of the judiciary.
I think it is much better to have congressional oversight and involvement in both the planning and the implementation of a chosen course of action.
Bill Clinton used the veto more than any other president in history. Bill Clinton decided he was better than congress. How amny time has Bush used a veto to override Congress?
Comments
Question is, why have the President's actions not been challenged in the only place it really matters. Only history will tell us that, but I have my suspicions.
Clouder..
Hope that's not TOO EDGY.
The ONLY way to obtain a judiciary review and judgement is to challenge an action.
Yes, that is the only way to obtain a judgment of Constitutionality for the action itself; but what is in question is not the Constitutionality of the action but the manner and given cause under which that action was covertly implemented, and whether the President exceded his authority in doing so. This in no way requires Constituitonal judgment to decide, any more than it required Constitutional judgment to decide the propriety of Slick Willy getting head in the Oval Office. Either the President acted in accordance with his office or he didn't, and it does not take the Supreme Court to decide the matter: Either we're at war or we're not; either the President followed established protocol or did not.
quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
The ONLY way to obtain a judiciary review and judgement is to challenge an action.
Yes, that is the only way to obtain a judgment of Constitutionality for the action itself; but what is in question is not the Constitutionality of the action but the manner and given cause under which that action was covertly implemented, and whether the President exceded his authority in doing so. This in no way requires Constituitonal judgment to decide, any more than it required Constitutional judgment to decide the propriety of Slick Willy getting head in the Oval Office. Either the President acted in accordance with his office or he didn't, and it does not take the Supreme Court to decide the matter: Either we're at war or we're not; either the President followed established protocol or did not.
You recently chastised someone else for citing historical precedent to support their argument. Citing Clinton's foibles by comparing a "Oval Office indiscretion" to an act of war, I think, proves your point, and at the same time, shows us your feet are also of clay.
Whether the President acted within the law, (describe it as "in accordance with his office" if you'd like,) will be determined if and when it's challenged. Why he acted is an ideological question, a political one, one of protocol. Under our Constitution, there are avenues to resolve both issues.
Wish your mom a Happy Mother's Day.
Clouder..
You recently chastised someone else for citing historical precedent to support their argument. Citing Clinton's foibles by comparing a * to an act of war, I think, proves your point, and at the same time, shows us your feet are also of clay.
The Clinton instance was not given for purpose of historical precedent, and you know it; it was given to illustrate how the actions of heads of state (no pun intended) do not require Judicial review to determine propriety.
quote:
Whether the President acted within the law, (describe it as "in accordance with his office" if you'd like,) will be determined if and when it's challenged. Why he acted is an ideological question, a political one, one of protocol. Under our Constitution, there are avenues to resolve both issues.
Merely providing iteration of your view to sidestep the issue is not a substitute for counter-argument. At last check, ideological and political reasons for actions do not supersede or otherwise override established protocol. Are you saying that they do? Your claim that an excess of power is not an excess of power unless it is first challenged and determined to be so wrongly supposes there is no clear line of demarcation to begin with. This is simply not the case. There are established procedures for implementing the type of action in question; whether these procedures were followed is not in question even by the White House, so what additional purpose would challenge serve? You are arguing that the President has occasions and the right to piss on protocol as he sees fit. I say he does not. And that is the real and only issue here.
The rights, freedom, and Liberties are not free, they have been paid in blood, sweat & Tears.
Yes, and they should not be unilaterally and arbitrarily taken away by some privileged megalomaniac with an axe to grind.
The Education of Ali Al-Timimi
Describing him as a "rock star" of Islamic fundamentalism in the United States, the government sent an American Muslim scientist to prison for life. But has justice been served?
by Milton Viorst
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200606/viorst-terrorist
Makes you think.
I think it is much better to have congressional oversight and involvement in both the planning and the implementation of a chosen course of action.
The role of the executive has slowly changed from one of almost limitless authority to what we have had for the last few decades which is more of a business type arrangement where the executive implements the desires of the board[congress]. And the judiciary acts as the SEC to make sure the implementation is done by the book. The present administration has made it clear that they wish to bring the presidency back to the times when the president was akin to a king and dictated his desires to the middle management[congress] who would then implement the wishes of the president under the scrutiny of the judiciary.
I think it is much better to have congressional oversight and involvement in both the planning and the implementation of a chosen course of action.
Bill Clinton used the veto more than any other president in history. Bill Clinton decided he was better than congress. How amny time has Bush used a veto to override Congress?
How amny time has Bush used a veto to override Congress?
I don't know. How many times has he rotated his tires? Both questions are equally relevant here.