exactly my point dude..we are slaves to the present and the past doesn’t always sway despite Santayana's saying...and those "powers" are at once illusionary and real...depending upon present circumstances..


if I may......

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature"?

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

No thanks. If the government said they needed to round up all Mexicans, you'd be the first to rationalize it all and say it's a good thing and that it's lawful because a lawmaker made it so. It would be consistent with everything you have shared in this forum.

regards ?

then you have not been reading my posts....you have been selective in your absorption of what I consider real and unreal. never, not once have you seen comment from me that supports the camps or inclusion of one creed, religion or color of such, read my comments again, I was arguing that the present law’s and supposition re:what is allowed by law makes it a prickly pear..show me ONE comment where in I said we should incarcerate anyone?

I have repeatedly said that I was not in those positions of supporting or denying a movement et al…..thats not support….thats not playing Monday morning quarter back. And making judgments I don’t feel qualified to make…

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

It's clear that w and his admin are promoting a policy of increasingly secret government and increasing executive power at the expense of citizens and the other branches with no believable justification that I've seen. I quoted the founders on how those abuses are best thwarted.
Your own posts have contained vague fears of faceless enemies and the forlorn hope that those good guys in the white house would never do anything "willy-nilly". IMO If you had your way we would soon lose all our freedoms.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

please prove that he is using anymore exec. Power than any of his predecessors in fact he has miles to go…want to discuss the espionage law’s of the early 1900s’? Check THAT out….wanna talk about a travesty…..and that’s in just this century….

and as far as liberties go, ask Clinton why 600 fbi files were found in his WH basement and lets guess who the files were on……uh huh, that old selectivity again and we weren’t at war…

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

If you say so, but I don't believe you. I've read your posts, why should I even have an inkling to believe that you would have a change of heart if our security interests escalated? Even in one of your posts you had this faith-based trust in our goverment. Sorry, if it walks like a duck and talks like one, more and likey it is a duck.

Where is it written that one that opposes this administration must defend Clinton's?

I wondered how long it would be until you were forced to pull out the standard bush apologist response. "bill clinton"

As far as I'm concerned this resort to clinton is as good as Godwins law - once you've gone there you've admitted you have no point.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

In a few years, it is quite likely that people will treat the PA like they currently treat the Japanese internment, and they will likely forget people like me, those who called it wrong from the getgo.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

i doubt they would ever need internment camps today. it would seem a bank account/credit freeze, being put on one of many no fly lists, being called "a person of interest," etc, would be a pretty effective way of completely screwing someones life up without ever having to physically imprison them. hmmm, what if they're a cash only person? well, okay, in that case i guess an internment camp would be the way to go. seriously though, i agree, more "harmless" monitoring is surely in the works.

IMHO, there really needs to be a showdown on the issue of signing statements. More than just terrorism has been cited as a justification for this signing statement, but also ordinary law enforcement such as drug law enforcement. Court decisions and laws already permit warrantless opening of mail in the case of a deemed physical threat in the mail (bombs, anthrax, etc) but not mere review of non-physical threats. If involvement in terrorism is suspected in a piece of mail, then the FISA court is there for recourse for warrants to open it. If other crime is there, then the regular courts are available for warrants to open it. This kind of mail need not be immediately delivered, but held in custody pending the warrant request being submitted and ruled upon. I see no basis except mischief for the signing statement, its blatant unconstitutionality on its face (IMO) aside.

Historically, POTUSes who chose to issue a signing statement for any bill they signed into law did so as a matter of political posturing and puffery. (Example: "This bill is a wonderful tool to combat . . . blah blah blah . . . and will serve the great ends of . . . blah blah blah . . . which I fully support . . blah blah blah). Hence, it was deemed harmless nonbinding stuff.

However, the practice started to take a far more questionable turn during the Reagan Presidency. Reagan started to use signing statements on occasion to state his intentions upon signing a bill of what parts of the bill meant and/or what parts or interpretations thereof he felt were not applicable to what he was signing and/or were not things he was effectively signing.

Every POTUS since Reagan has adopted his practice. George H.W. Bush issued 146 and Bill Clinton issued 105 such statements as tools intended to shape or crop the bills they signed into law. Dubya has now made the same practice a regular act when signing bills, having issued over 800 of them so far in his two term Presidency, often to state what part of the laws he feels are 'applicable' or 'mean' etc.

IMO, the signing statement is plainly unconstitutional not only as a violation of the separation of powers but also an action not delegated to the executive. Congress is the branch entirely entrusted to write bills. The executive branch has absolutely no power whatsoever to shape proposed legislation. The only thing the executive is authorised to do is either sign a bill into law in its full form as passed by Congress, allow it to become law or expire without his signature after the passage of the requisite time, or veto it. 'Line item' vetoes are not allowed by the US constitution (i.e., vetoing specific portions of a bill whilst signing the rest into law). Moreover, the judicial branch is solely entrusted to interpret the language of laws and rule upon their constitutionality. The executive has no power to interpret the meaning of laws or decide their constitutionality.

I hope that litigation can enjoin the POTUS from attaching these statements by having them declared unconstitutional. I believe that the SCOTUS would hold them unconstitutional. I predict that the liberals and moderates would find them to be unconstitutional, and I believe that Justice Scalia, as a self-described 'originalist' and Justice Thomas as a 'strict constructionist/originalist' would side with finding these statements unconstitutional.

Prior to a ruling, I think the practice could be stopped in practicality by having willing US Attorneys in federal prosecution offices who likewise find this practice constitutionally offensive to issue policy statements that signing statements are viewed as being void on their face, and that any acts made by any government officials who choose to rely upon a signing statement as a justification for an act when they know or should know that the act does not comport with existing federal laws exactly as written and/or are made in spite of established case law from court decisions will result in their firing and/or potential prosecution for wilfully violating the law. I'd try to get other government officials that feel likewise to adopt the same policy insofar as firing subordinates who choose to cite a signing statement for committing an act otherwise viewed as unlawful looking at the statutes and case law.

Well said.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Well said indeed.

It doesn't affect me because we in Australia have our own snivelling little would-be tinpot dictator who is going to get the boot next election but Bush's behaviour with his so-called "signing statements" is complete legal bollocks (as has been cogently argued). Perhaps the Congress may take issue with it. It will be fascinating to watch.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

hardly...that may have been a bit of a cheap shot inyo, but as an example its germane.....put it down to general exhaustion of the topic imho..I think the issue is out there and the pros and cons are spelled out....we'll see how it works out..but I would not expect the dems to be rushing to shut this down..the american public is not on that side...last poll I saw, had the support for the issue around 60%..then again, I admit it all depends no who is asking and how...the courts will have to work it out if congress does not...

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Actually, unreasonable search and seizure is in the constitution. I think something like that would qualify. Mail, on the other hand is a voluntary govt service, and I dont think that searching mail sent to or from suspected terrorists is unreasonable.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.