Why McCain / Palin is OK with me

wrote in
:

What do you see as some examples of this?


For one, the rampant use of the signing statement at an absurd level that
surpasses anything ever done before by any administration.

Two-- not showing Justice Department findings explaining how law is to be
interpreted. You can't keep the law a secret.

Three- ridiculous claims of executive privilege, and the ignoring of
Congressional subpeonaea


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

dicklet said:

I have no obligation to explain, much less justify, anything to anyone
here

dicklet also said:

"I've asked every Obama supporter or even mere fan on ROFF and not gotten a
single objective explanation of _anything_ the man has _ever_ done that
qualifies him to POTUS."

As we all know only too well, some people are obligated to provide
explanations for one thing or another, while others are exempt on account'a
they says so.

Seriously.

And there you are,

Ainna?

Then dicklet said

I suspect that I work at least as much, if not more, on things at least
as mentally and physically difficult, if not more so, and do so for a
longer period of time, on most days than many of "the rest of 'us'" and
have for many years

Oh yeah? Bet you don't. So there. Nannie nannie boo boo!

And then dicklet said:

But I know that such stuff has no instant relevance

And who could ask for a better reason to belabor it, huh?

because, again, I'm not running for POTUS

No, actually, it has no "instant relevance" because there is no more
substance to this particular offering of intellectually and morrally vacant
tripe than there is to any of your others.

nor am I claiming to deserve anything.

You're a liar.

And there we are,

Well, there YOU are.

Wolfgang

On Sep 8, 9:32*pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote :

What do you see as some examples of this?

For one, the rampant use of the signing statement at an absurd level that
surpasses anything ever done before by any administration.

Two-- not showing Justice Department findings explaining how law is to be
interpreted. *You can't keep the law a secret.

Three- ridiculous claims of executive privilege, and the ignoring of
Congressional subpeonaea

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Add "Free Speech Zones" to the list.

--riverman

On 8 Sep 2008 13:32:04 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in
:

What do you see as some examples of this?


For one, the rampant use of the signing statement at an absurd level that
surpasses anything ever done before by any administration.

Two-- not showing Justice Department findings explaining how law is to be
interpreted. You can't keep the law a secret.

Three- ridiculous claims of executive privilege, and the ignoring of
Congressional subpeonaea

Well, if, um, "sub-peon" stuff would come from anywhere, Congress would
seem a likely source...

Seriously though, how would you argue that these are violations of the
US Constitution? Please cite what you argue is the violated article,
amendment, law, act, etc.

TC,
R

wrote in
:

On 8 Sep 2008 13:32:04 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in
m:

What do you see as some examples of this?


For one, the rampant use of the signing statement at an absurd level
that surpasses anything ever done before by any administration.

Two-- not showing Justice Department findings explaining how law is to
be interpreted. You can't keep the law a secret.

Three- ridiculous claims of executive privilege, and the ignoring of
Congressional subpeonaea

Well, if, um, "sub-peon" stuff would come from anywhere, Congress
would seem a likely source...

Seriously though, how would you argue that these are violations of the
US Constitution? Please cite what you argue is the violated article,
amendment, law, act, etc.

TC,
R


The signing statement is the Executive Branch MAKING LAW. They are not
allowed to do that. Clear violation of separation of Powers.

There is no Executive privilege in the Constitution. Exercising that
"right" is a violation of the oversight responsibilities constitutionally
mandated to Congress.





--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Sep 8, 11:26*am, wrote:

Seriously though, how would you argue that these are violations of the
US Constitution? *Please cite what you argue is the violated article,
amendment, law, act, etc.

TC,
R
Scout Dean, its time you carried your own pack like a man.
Richard, see, this is that deal about the importance of doing YOUR OWN
READING again. You have had access to the same media, and maybe even
more of the CONSERVATIVE analysis of the constitutional problems with
the Bush Presidency. Yet, you need to ask others to do your work,
gather your footnotes, clean up your messes.
Dave
Cowboy up man, show some gumption

On 8 Sep 2008 18:37:02 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in
:

On 8 Sep 2008 13:32:04 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in
:

What do you see as some examples of this?


For one, the rampant use of the signing statement at an absurd level
that surpasses anything ever done before by any administration.

Two-- not showing Justice Department findings explaining how law is to
be interpreted. You can't keep the law a secret.

Three- ridiculous claims of executive privilege, and the ignoring of
Congressional subpeonaea

Well, if, um, "sub-peon" stuff would come from anywhere, Congress
would seem a likely source...

Seriously though, how would you argue that these are violations of the
US Constitution? Please cite what you argue is the violated article,
amendment, law, act, etc.

TC,
R


The signing statement is the Executive Branch MAKING LAW. They are not
allowed to do that. Clear violation of separation of Powers.

There is no Executive privilege in the Constitution. Exercising that
"right" is a violation of the oversight responsibilities constitutionally
mandated to Congress.

Hmmm...separation of powers...Congressional subpoenas...do you feel that
the President can subpoena members of Congress...what about a
Congressional subpoena to, oh, say, Scalia? Again, if you would, please
cite specifics as to the violations you allege.

As to signing statement, were you just as outraged when Clinton, who has
a JD and had a bar card, issued them? What about all the other
presidents that issued them? And are you prepared to state
categorically that if Obama, who also has a JD, but no bar card, is
elected and issues so much as one, that it would be your opinion that he
should be impeached as he would be a violator of the US Constitution?
Please cite and give _your_ opinion as to the alleged violation(s), not
the ABA's or some other opinion.

And what about the Justice Department findings you mentioned - what's
the argued violation you see there?

TC,
R

wrote in news:0usac4pnf6oeikqbsoo56m74bpsq94juh9
@4ax.com:

Hmmm...separation of powers...Congressional subpoenas...do you feel that
the President can subpoena members of Congress...what about a
Congressional subpoena to, oh, say, Scalia? Again, if you would, please
cite specifics as to the violations you allege.


The President has no constitutional oversight responsibilities.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

wrote in news:0usac4pnf6oeikqbsoo56m74bpsq94juh9
@4ax.com:

And what about the Justice Department findings you mentioned - what's
the argued violation you see there?

You asked for a handful of examples. I believe I've offered them.

The Justice Department violations involve hiding the laws people need to
know so that they can obey them. Keeping the Justice Department
interpretations secret is Kafkaesque.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 8 Sep 2008 19:45:16 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:0usac4pnf6oeikqbsoo56m74bpsq94juh9
:

Hmmm...separation of powers...Congressional subpoenas...do you feel that
the President can subpoena members of Congress...what about a
Congressional subpoena to, oh, say, Scalia? Again, if you would, please
cite specifics as to the violations you allege.


The President has no constitutional oversight responsibilities.

Hmmm...so what, in your opinion, should the President do should he feel
that Congress has presented a bill for signature or veto that contains a
Constitutional violation (keep in mind that line item veto is a no-no)?
IAC, extra-Constitutional and UN-Constitutional are two different
things.

And are you no longer contending that the other items you mentioned are
violations?

TC,
R