|
Post by axis16666 on Jun 23, 2012 15:19:14 GMT
Anyone interested in commenting?
(Not the movie.....think 'Executive Privilege'
|
|
|
Post by Crazy on Jun 23, 2012 16:04:06 GMT
Imagine what the White House is covering up, that it would take the risk of a publicity nightmare with Executive Privilege.
Or does their voter base just not care?
|
|
|
Post by tomaan on Jun 28, 2012 16:34:11 GMT
Imagine what the White House is covering up, that it would take the risk of a publicity nightmare with Executive Privilege. Or does their voter base just not care? I think a lot of people see it as a partisan thing -- after, all this program started in the Bush Administration. That said, the Obama Administration isn't doing itself any favors..."executive privilege" claims typically cause more problems than they solve.
|
|
|
Post by Stormchaser on Jun 29, 2012 6:21:10 GMT
... this program started in the Bush Administration. Fast and Furious started in 2009, last I checked that was during the Obama administration.
|
|
|
Post by AuBricker on Jun 29, 2012 6:52:12 GMT
Actually, Fast and Furious is simply a repeat of two gun-walking operations began in 2006, long before the election of Obama. And while I am not a huge fan of executive privilege, it is hardly new to Obama. If you attended high school in the United States, you have likely heard of the treason trial of Aaron Burr, Thomas Jefferson's estranged vice-president. Jefferson, eager to convict Burr, improperly attempted to influence the court. When the court pushed back, Jefferson asserted -- you guessed it -- executive privilege. Since then, Jefferson's successors have claimed the privilege time and again.
While I am not a fanatical fan of Obama, I support him because of the absurdity and unfairness of the claims against him. Congress, which turned a blind eye to two similar gun-walking operations occurring under G. W. Bush, now pursues Obama and Holder pursuant to an NRA conspiracy theory. (In election years, when the NRA barks, Congress goes as weak at the knees as Bill Clinton does when a cheerleader flashes a thigh.) The NRA claim, promoted mainly by House Republicans -- with the compliance of a few Southern "Blue Dog" Democrats -- asserts that Obama and Holder deliberately passed guns to criminal elements so they could exploit an resulting chaos and confiscate privately-owned firearms. Really.
This inane theory was largely advanced by the same batch of fools who wave Kenyan birth certificates and claim that Obama is simultaneously, however implausibly, a Bolshevik and a Nazi. Gun-walking operations, while perhaps ill-advised, are not new, but Obama is accused of perverting the Constitution for enacting the very same program his Republican predecessor less successfully attempted.
|
|
|
Post by axis16666 on Jun 29, 2012 9:33:56 GMT
Obama pervert the constitution? He (nor our Supreme Court) would ever do that. (See Affordable Health Care Act)
|
|
|
Post by AuBricker on Jun 29, 2012 10:19:33 GMT
Axis, the argument that the Affordable Health Care Act is a perversion of the Constitution is nonsense. You need only read Article I, Section 8 to note the absurdity of this claim.
Note the opening line: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
Then continue reading toward the end of Section 8 which grants Congress the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers ..."
That sounds like a fairly broad mandate to me. I concede that the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution has not been evoked in recent years. Since the New Deal period, the federal government has largely relied upon the Commerce Clause in its place. Nevertheless, the General Welfare Clause remains a valid part of the Constitution. Furthermore, while the Roberts decision rejected the Commerce Clause argument advanced by the administration -- the commerce powers of the federal government have been a bugbear in conservative nightmares since George Washington and Alexander Hamilton employed them to great affect over two centuries ago. Instead, Roberts deemed the AHCA as a constitutional expression of the federal government's taxing powers. As you can see from the passage I quoted above, this view is amply justified.
The provision that most stuck in the craw of most conservatives and even some liberals was the federal mandate. Those who object to its constitutionality are ignoring history. George Washington was president of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Alexander Hamilton provided much of the impetus for the revising the Articles of Confederation (the movement which resulted in the Constitution being drafted) Constitution's ratification. Working with a Congress comprised of men who assisted them in drafting the Constitution, they enacted federal mandates requiring citizen purchases. Later, John Adams, admittedly not one of the Constitutional Framers, but a keen observer and working with a Congress again containing several Constitutional Framers, enacted a mandate requiring certain citizens to purchase -- wait for it -- health insurance.
My question: The men who created the Constitution believed mandates to be a valid function of the federal government. Why do so many current conservatives believe they understand the Constitution better than the men who created it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 12:27:38 GMT
Actually, Fast and Furious is simply a repeat of two gun-walking operations began in 2006, long before the election of Obama. And while I am not a huge fan of executive privilege, it is hardly new to Obama. If you attended high school in the United States, you have likely heard of the treason trial of Aaron Burr, Thomas Jefferson's estranged vice-president. Jefferson, eager to convict Burr, improperly attempted to influence the court. When the court pushed back, Jefferson asserted -- you guessed it -- executive privilege. Since then, Jefferson's successors have claimed the privilege time and again. While I am not a fanatical fan of Obama, I support him because of the absurdity and unfairness of the claims against him. Congress, which turned a blind eye to two similar gun-walking operations occurring under G. W. Bush, now pursues Obama and Holder pursuant to an NRA conspiracy theory. (In election years, when the NRA barks, Congress goes as weak at the knees as Bill Clinton does when a cheerleader flashes a thigh.) The NRA claim, promoted mainly by House Republicans -- with the compliance of a few Southern "Blue Dog" Democrats -- asserts that Obama and Holder deliberately passed guns to criminal elements so they could exploit an resulting chaos and confiscate privately-owned firearms. Really. This inane theory was largely advanced by the same batch of fools who wave Kenyan birth certificates and claim that Obama is simultaneously, however implausibly, a Bolshevik and a Nazi. Gun-walking operations, while perhaps ill-advised, are not new, but Obama is accused of perverting the Constitution for enacting the very same program his Republican predecessor less successfully attempted. The furor over fast and furious is that a border patrol agent was killed by guns walked into the hands of drug cartels. That happened under Obama, not Bush. ""Fast and Furious investigation started with agent's death.""That the Democrats in Congress are trying to brew racial tensions by saying that putting Holder in contempt is just the Republicans way of ensuring minorities cannot vote, is in its self contemptible and coupled with what could happen if Obama is not elected again in November, is setting the scene for violence. ""They're going after Eric Holder because he is supporting measures to overturn these voter suppression initiatives in the states,"" Unless you are black or living behind the walls of some fortified community with armed guards at the gates, how do you think this is going to turn out for you or the rest of us who don't fit into either of the above categories if things go south? Probably not good, which is a good reason to take advantage of the second amendment and some of those fire-arms classes that are one of the many privileges that comes along with being a member of the NRA.
|
|
|
Post by AuBricker on Jun 29, 2012 13:38:06 GMT
Axis,
The agent's death had nothing to do with Obama beyond the fact that he was president at the time it occurred. People died when G. W. Bush was president, yet you did not see the NRA leading the charge for his impeachment. As I said, the inane cry for blood is basically an NRA conspiracy theory that Obama planned the entire incident to facilitate a federal seizure of privately held firearms. Gun-walking operations did not begin under Obama.
By the way, do you doubt that Republicans desire to prevent minorities from voting? Have you forgotten the phony outrage at non-existent ACORN scandals? Note that Republicans cannot point to any real evidence of voter fraud, yet they insist on so-called voter protection measures that overwhelmingly affect minorities? Whey do Republicans insist on voter identification documents of a sort not possessed by a relatively large numbers of minorities instead of following the lead of some nations and issuing a photo voter id at the time of voter registration? Why do Republicans push for an end to early voting on Sundays, a day when African-Americans traditionally vote in large numbers, but not on Saturday? Why are voter purges far more likely to affect voters living in minority neighborhoods? (This last problem affected me directly as I live in a minority neighborhood: A poll worker tried to prevent me from voting in the 2008. I voted only after threating legal recourse. Some of my neighbors were turned away.)
That said, do you have a problem with Holder trying to prevent voter suppression initiatives?
And don't get me started on the Second Amendment. But I do suggest you read the entire thing carefully, and then read Articles I and II of the Constitution, paying close attention to how a "militia" might be "well regulated."
|
|
|
Post by tomaan on Jun 29, 2012 13:43:33 GMT
Fear mongering serves nobody -- whether it comes from the Left or the Right.
Think for yourself and don't feed into it.
And yes: "Fast and Furious" was an Obama program but, as mentioned above, "gun running" stings are hardly new -- six of one half dozen of another imho.
|
|
|
Post by vorshlumpf on Jun 29, 2012 19:42:10 GMT
Very interesting. Thanks for the history/law lesson, AuBricker. I'm generally interested in politics all over the world, and this anti-health care movement in the USA has been very intriguing for me as a Canadian (especially since Canada was held up by Palin and others as an example of the horrors of universal healthcare, and now with people apparently claiming they are fed up with the Supreme Court decision and are moving to Canada!). - Niilo
|
|
|
Post by AuBricker on Jun 29, 2012 20:37:11 GMT
Vorshlumpt,
LOL. I've read the tweets by the disgruntled Teabaggers eager to escape the socialist Hell the US has become by moving to Canada. I have offered to help them pack. Once they are on your side of the border, we will build a fence to keep them there.
|
|
|
Post by vorshlumpf on Jun 30, 2012 4:26:56 GMT
This (warning: potty language)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 6:11:23 GMT
I used to be very interested in politics, not so much any more. Only in so much as a historical thing. Politicians are corrupt in general and America is going into the toilet. Blame it on whatever party you want- I blame them all.
|
|
|
Post by chirality on Jun 30, 2012 6:36:02 GMT
I have offered to help them pack. Once they are on your side of the border, we will build a fence to keep them there. No thanks, I'd rather they stay here where we communists can keep an eye on them and steal their guns to ensure that they don't do anything rash. Heh, yeah +1 and it made me chuckle. But honestly, I think it's a shame that the poor Canadians are now having to deal with our bad apples. Sure, I want to say I'm happy at each and every loony who decides to leave the country, but unfortunately it won't help anything here and can really only make matters worse there. Maybe once we take their guns we can just round them up and ship them up to the civilian labor camps and that way we will have a solution that is both safe, productive, and pleasing to both Canadians and Americans.
|
|