Have the Dems Finally Grown a Pair?Follow

Lol, that's fun-nay. As if Republican pols have cornered the market on hyperbole. That is rich.

Not at all. It's just all they have, so when it fails it's far more of an abject disaster.

*cough* The US constitution gives them that power. Ok. Technically, it gives it to the President,

It does?

Could you bold that part for us, please?


Section 1 - The President

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.)

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.



Thanks.




Edited, Feb 20th 2008 6:33pm by Smasharoo

Smash peed on the thread! ;)


The power derives from the Presidents position as commander in chief to the military forces. There are numerous SCOTUS cases affirming that this includes that power to conduct foreign intelligence gathering.

I hear some Googleing.

I truly hope that your pee is not that colour...

Edited, Feb 20th 2008 9:43pm by paulsol

That was in jest.

Old Sport.

Er? It was denied because the plaintiffs couldn't establish sufficient evidence that a violation of any sort had occurred. While you're correct that this does not innately prove that the NSA has the power to conduct foreign wiretaps, it certainly does imply it strongly. If the NSA was required to obtain some form of warrant for every wiretap it conducted regardless of target or location, we simply wouldn't be having this conversation.




Um... No it's the opposite. FISA would not exist if there was not some assumed power of the executive to do exactly the sort of foreign surveillance defined in the law. FISA simply codifies a set of powers that the president has always held and has used repeatedly for the entire history of the US.


FISA does not grant to the president the power to conduct foreign surveillance. It exists to define exactly what constitutes foreign surveillance so as to ensure that said powers are not used against persons protected by the constitution (fourth amendment specifically). If the office of the president didn't possess such a power, and had been presumably abusing it domestically, there would have been no need for FISA to exist. FISA is a limit on presidential power, not an extension of it. The fact that it came about after a series of events involving the spying on of people inside the US is the first clue that this is the case...


Heck. Read United States v Nixon for some basic relevant background. It's most applicable to the idea of secrecy (ie: the supposed "catch-22" represented by the recent ACLU case). The SCOTUS clearly set the terms for such secrecy, and the actions of the wiretapping operations the NSA is conducting clearly match those terms. The point being that if there was no assumed constitutional power for the executive to conduct intelligence gathering missions at all, then why did the court define conditions under which it couldn't do so? It would have simply stated that all surveillance by the executive branch required warrants and that would have been the end of that...


I don't know if there's a single case in which the actual issue at hand was the constitutional authority of the executive to do this. But the absence of *any* such case, combined with numerous examples of other cases in which this authority is defined speaks volumes. Clearly the SCOTUS views this as a legitimate use of executive power.

I don't know if there's a single case in which the actual issue at hand was the constitutional authority of the executive to do this. But the absence of *any* such case, combined with numerous examples of other cases in which this authority is defined speaks volumes. Clearly the SCOTUS views this as a legitimate use of executive power.

HAhahahahah.

Sorry, I missed to:

"I can't find any of the NUMEROUS cases that don't exist, so that proves it"


HAhahahaha, man.

Clinton's still got the nomination wrapped up too, right?

/sigh. Have a good one, I'm going to watch the eclipse and drink and laugh about you.

Night.



Edited, Feb 20th 2008 10:29pm by Smasharoo

For someone who claims to understand how the law works, you're remarkably dense about some pretty obvious facts. Are you arguing that when Congress passed the Military Commissions bill a couple years ago, that this was granting the US executive branch the power to detain people during the course of a military conflict? I'm quite sure that this is already covered under the whole "army and navy" part of section 2, article 2 of the Constitution.

It's not.

You still don't get it yet, do you?

Here, Let me help:



Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, ********* dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


See, Junior, that part ACTUALLY IS IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Runny how Conservatives don't understand the document at all. Haha.

Oopsie.

Edited, Feb 20th 2008 10:49pm by Smasharoo

Edited, Feb 20th 2008 10:52pm by Smasharoo

*cough*

"make rules" Smash. Not "grant authority". Congress cannot, for example, take the power of the executive to make captures away. They can define who can be captured and under what conditions and terms, but they can't take the power away. They can't exercise it themselves. They cannot vest it in another body.

That's what makes it a checks and balances process Smash. If Congress just gets to tell the president exactly what to do, then it possesses all the power of both branches, doesn't it? I know that this is something that far left socialists like yourself would love since it puts the most power into the single branch of government that your ideology has the most success controlling, but that's simply not how the constitution intended for power to be shared.


If you think so, I suggest that your education was badly wasted and you should demand a refund.

Smash has stated in the past that he thinks that income taxes should all be set to 50% or higher so as to allow the state to provide for people instead of relying on the citizens to do it themselves. He's also stated that he believes that no one should ever be allowed to accumulate "wealth". Specifically, that wealth itself should be taxed, rather then an increase in it (so, for example you'd be taxed X percent of everything you own each year regardless of how you obtained it). He basically believes that people should be taxed and the government provide everything they "need", with whatever else is left over being used for direct consumption. The concept of saving money for later doesn't apply (since, no one would need to, right?). Obviously, capital gains would be taxed as income as well.


He's also stated a desire for what he labeled a "meritocracy". Of course, his version means that the government decides what everything is worth and sets all the prices and wage levels. These would be set based on what the government thought the "merit" of something was. So staple goods would be set at cheap prices, and luxuries would cost you dearly (or just not be available I suppose). This would apply to wages as well. The government would basically set every salary based on standardized titles and presumably some sort of time/level pay ladder structure.


He somehow thinks this would provide all the citizens in his utopian society more freedom and liberty...


Yes. He's a nut.

Heh. Yeah. The terms do have slightly different connotations on each side of the pond, don't they? In the case of the dreadlocked crusties, they aren't complicit with the goals of socialism, but they support them through ignorance I suppose.

Given that socialism is defined as the governments control over industry, I suspect that my description of Smash's "meritocracy" fits socialism more then someone mindlessly smashing up stuff they don't like (which only happens to be symbols of the free market).

I suppose the difference lies in what you define as "far left". To me, that's someone who really believes that the tenants of socialism (government control over the economy) is the right way to do things and knowingly fights for exactly that degree of control (more taxes, more regulation, government run industry, tight union-government relationship, wage controls, etc). To me, someone who doesn't really understand that end goal, but merely buys into the rhetoric and reacts emotionally to the "big business is bad!" argument (without considering the alternative) isn't as "far left" as the former group. He's just stupid...