Here is my reply yesterday, which I don't want to waste, and need to use as a preamble to other news.
Due to some maintanence problems, this post by Marjorie Cohn arrived in my email before I could get the rest of this posted.
REPLY RE: "Stuck on Stupid"
Please spare me such evil non-sequitors and I will spare you a useless reply.
However since men and women are dying for our freedoms, or "whatever" ( I know that they are mostly dying for their brothers and sisters and a cause they believe or believed) rather than get hung up on how a mother honors her dead or the living, we should all be honoring what I believe and I know many know they are fighting for, by using those freedoms for what we believe in.
[A LAST MINUTE INSERT: Cindy has more right and has done more to honor God, Flag, and Country of both the dead and living by practicing the freedoms that our military are fighting and dying for than the Commander in Thief has done by practicing his freedom from reality and checks and balances.]
Stuck on stupid should apply to anyone who says, "just get over it", when our constitution is being ignored, not only by the President, and many in Congress, but the so called "press". You may wonder why I left off the courts, well that is because they are divided into those that honor their job and those that have a philosophy, increasingly known as "the unitary executive". That is where the congress makes the laws, the president decides how to enforce them, and the justices have no cases since the president doesn't even need to veto a law if he doesn't have to follow it, and Republicans rubber stamp as much as they can get away with.
Hey, Democrats aren't exactly rocking the boat either, but believe it or not they are not in charge. Actually they got a lot of oars in the water and all the president does is make waves.
The president may understand one good point, that people can get away with whatever they can until they are caught, and he's a heckuva catcher.
Peace and Progress be with you, Roger
P.S.
One does not need to be a lawyer but should be able to read a full sentence even if they are sometimes paragraphs, to see how far the philosophy of "unitary executive" has violated whatever we are about.
FINALLY HOWEVER: The ABA investigates "Signing statements" and recommended full senate investigation of spying
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query unitary. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query unitary. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
The Undisclosed Bunker Branch of the Government.
Cheney's place as "Angler" has now been disclosed in a four-part series in the Washington Post, where "understanding" is the key word.
[note that there is a lot of hard work here, by others *]
What does the Vice-President's claim that he is not part of the Executive Branch do to earlier claims of executive privilege? I think it would fall under Unitary theory that Cheney and Bush have whatever powers Cheney has decided for them and Bush understands only that, not that it puts Cheney in charge of the whole ball of wax.
A few earlier post of mine on the loop as long as we are into geometry.
The Truth Apparent: A Mobius Lap
Running with Rhetoric
Unreasonable Proof of/or Reality
Original Intent
Sorry for my own little four-part review(much shorter than the WaPo though, of which only three are out yet, and I've only read a few paragraphs), but as opposed to the "Angler" who approaches "the levers of power obliquely, skirting orderly lines of debate he once enforced as chief of staff to President Gerald R. Ford.", I must brink up my ealier tangents that have already visited the subjects but only touch a point on a curve.
From Randi's cite:*
House Democrats to cut funds for VP from Executive Branch. Raw Story
Senate challenge understanding as well. NY Times
Bush thinking (see above) "the law"
Press conference on "non issue" of oversight
On wire-taps by Judge
CIA of the going back to Nixon Era released.
Condemned or chosen to repeat.
GITMO A & B
HALLIBURTON A & B
Prosecutor Purge
Vote Caging: speaking of returns and locked up.
And off of AM1090 Seattle cite:
Democracy Now has Rocky Anderson as guest on the impeachment process.
Thanks to Randi Rhodes for the real "hard work", which I have not done yet by reading these, but getting them together is a start, and for you to continue the "hard work" as well. Of which, the first post indicates that Bush does not read much of what he signs from Cheney.
* This stems from a few days ago when this broke(the first link) and I was probably listening to Randi Rhodes and I thought, that if there is an EO (executive order)that Bush has signed and given their pattern of behavior, it does probably not apply to the President or whomever he choose not to appy it to, and probably didn't need to include a signing statement on his own EO as his privileges include that only he knows what he means. If that. And that is another imagined out or bunker of their mind. (I believe David Bender or Ring of Fire or a guest deserves note for the last reference.)
[note that there is a lot of hard work here, by others *]
What does the Vice-President's claim that he is not part of the Executive Branch do to earlier claims of executive privilege? I think it would fall under Unitary theory that Cheney and Bush have whatever powers Cheney has decided for them and Bush understands only that, not that it puts Cheney in charge of the whole ball of wax.
A few earlier post of mine on the loop as long as we are into geometry.
The Truth Apparent: A Mobius Lap
Running with Rhetoric
Unreasonable Proof of/or Reality
Original Intent
Sorry for my own little four-part review(much shorter than the WaPo though, of which only three are out yet, and I've only read a few paragraphs), but as opposed to the "Angler" who approaches "the levers of power obliquely, skirting orderly lines of debate he once enforced as chief of staff to President Gerald R. Ford.", I must brink up my ealier tangents that have already visited the subjects but only touch a point on a curve.
From Randi's cite:*
House Democrats to cut funds for VP from Executive Branch. Raw Story
Senate challenge understanding as well. NY Times
Bush thinking (see above) "the law"
Press conference on "non issue" of oversight
On wire-taps by Judge
CIA of the going back to Nixon Era released.
Condemned or chosen to repeat.
GITMO A & B
HALLIBURTON A & B
Prosecutor Purge
Vote Caging: speaking of returns and locked up.
And off of AM1090 Seattle cite:
Democracy Now has Rocky Anderson as guest on the impeachment process.
Thanks to Randi Rhodes for the real "hard work", which I have not done yet by reading these, but getting them together is a start, and for you to continue the "hard work" as well. Of which, the first post indicates that Bush does not read much of what he signs from Cheney.
* This stems from a few days ago when this broke(the first link) and I was probably listening to Randi Rhodes and I thought, that if there is an EO (executive order)that Bush has signed and given their pattern of behavior, it does probably not apply to the President or whomever he choose not to appy it to, and probably didn't need to include a signing statement on his own EO as his privileges include that only he knows what he means. If that. And that is another imagined out or bunker of their mind. (I believe David Bender or Ring of Fire or a guest deserves note for the last reference.)
Friday, July 01, 2011
By George...
I think that President Obama has got it. No Goldilocks, but the middle road between Boehner and Whiner. While no hot dog or Bush the Unitary Executive, some on the right have said he can "get her done".
Monday, July 28, 2008
POLITICS
NOT A DIRTY WORD!
But it is in the eye or ear of the beholder.
Embedded in the previous postings are two points about accountability.
Politics and timing.
They seem to play a big part in the planning of any endeavor.
These too, are not dirty words.
Except possibly in the grip of the wielders of power.
But I digress, the particulars are that accountability is part of the process and success of our process. There must be investigations because they are political and because of the timing. The arguments must be held and there is never a better time, especially for politics. But the actual particulars of accountability are what role politics has played and will play and whether they preempted accountability. It is not just a coincidence[*] that Watergate involved the Nixon/Ford administration and their respective views on what is legal and what is political. It is the same characters and the polarity between the president being unitary (Nixon) and accountability (the process) being political (Ford), not to mention subsequent success and failures of economics, war and foreign policy. I won't get into the respective overlap and/or disconnect between committees and their intelligence sharing and responsibilities, but I will note the relation to issues in the current political campaigns and the press for or on the bottom line, the people.
[As usual I have embedded too much in rhetoric, another word that is not dirty, except in how it is used, and in which the administration and probably McCain places its only hope. But the point of politics and timing being important hinges on the process and the administration has been preemptive with too much. Now rhetoric is lost in anachronism, while accountability was lost before September 11th, 2001.]
[*]footnote: "positive polarization" and somewhere there was a political calculus of the Bush impeachment, but this is only the rhetoric and all that is needed in this rhetorical war on aftermath and preempting of hope.
But it is in the eye or ear of the beholder.
Embedded in the previous postings are two points about accountability.
Politics and timing.
They seem to play a big part in the planning of any endeavor.
These too, are not dirty words.
Except possibly in the grip of the wielders of power.
But I digress, the particulars are that accountability is part of the process and success of our process. There must be investigations because they are political and because of the timing. The arguments must be held and there is never a better time, especially for politics. But the actual particulars of accountability are what role politics has played and will play and whether they preempted accountability. It is not just a coincidence[*] that Watergate involved the Nixon/Ford administration and their respective views on what is legal and what is political. It is the same characters and the polarity between the president being unitary (Nixon) and accountability (the process) being political (Ford), not to mention subsequent success and failures of economics, war and foreign policy. I won't get into the respective overlap and/or disconnect between committees and their intelligence sharing and responsibilities, but I will note the relation to issues in the current political campaigns and the press for or on the bottom line, the people.
[As usual I have embedded too much in rhetoric, another word that is not dirty, except in how it is used, and in which the administration and probably McCain places its only hope. But the point of politics and timing being important hinges on the process and the administration has been preemptive with too much. Now rhetoric is lost in anachronism, while accountability was lost before September 11th, 2001.]
[*]footnote: "positive polarization" and somewhere there was a political calculus of the Bush impeachment, but this is only the rhetoric and all that is needed in this rhetorical war on aftermath and preempting of hope.
Friday, May 07, 2010
Hierarchy of Hypocrisy
Hating to generalize I note my potential logical fallacy in the following. Nevertheless, between the 2nd amendment and the 14th amendment, there seems a hierarchy for some. From Right to Bear Arms to Citizenship Rights where does the 1st amendment fit in? (*)
A. There is no hierarchy in constitutional amendments.
B. There are Supreme Court rulings that influence their dynamics.
C. So many blogs are moot points. (GOTO 1st sentence)
Of course maybe my posts are just moot or problematic. Problematic in generalizing and leaping. Unfortunately you must read, to decide. In generalizing there may be some association between the authors of certain events but not necessarily relevant. In the above case I simply point to fact that removal of citizenship is being considered for some but not their guns, while free speech is an element that might be fringe but relative. Meanwhile in an earlier and adjacent thought, some of this new found legislative fury seem like WMD.** Weapons of Mass Distraction. It would seem that all this populist rancor is really keeping Homeland Securiy busy. And while I support all rights reasonably used, I cannot help but feel that it really is a burden on our security. A bit more responsible reporting and responsible associating might help, but then how one goes about that...almost makes me long for a unitary executive. BTW: the dot, dot, dot was a rhetorical segue or moot question.
My potential obtuseness was not an attempt to be excedingly careful***, yet the cause and effect might be anachronistic(i.e. flip-flopped). The links to previous word choices were not intentionally designed to be more than a search for my previous usage, but they do seem to bring up some previous associations which show the importance of the process and progress, not to mention providing hope.
(*) an alternative link.
(**) not that early: My first referencing of Weapon of Mass Distraction.
(***) but maybe an antidote to some talk show hosts that muddle the search for terrorist
[Oh, and I do not vouch for the legal analysis or terminology in my ABC's. And had not intended to close with the SCOTUS link when I set out. Let alone the less than inflammable association with security. But it does seem that it is wierd that flammable and moot have similar usage issues as does the roots or branches of Faust, let alone Devil's Advocates. But no, that is the legal process, not to mention political, and word and world modifying dynamics, or as I have stumbled out(or coined) "dymanics". I will conclude with the issue that there was some Beckian confusion in the topic of a National Prayer Day in regard to what was canceled and what is being fought and by whom. But the ideas which Thom Hartmann yesterday contrasted was a National Day of Reason to share and balance the National Day of Prayer. While I suggested a National Day of Faith. But would that be legal? Not without debate, moot and inflammable or not.]
A. There is no hierarchy in constitutional amendments.
B. There are Supreme Court rulings that influence their dynamics.
C. So many blogs are moot points. (GOTO 1st sentence)
Of course maybe my posts are just moot or problematic. Problematic in generalizing and leaping. Unfortunately you must read, to decide. In generalizing there may be some association between the authors of certain events but not necessarily relevant. In the above case I simply point to fact that removal of citizenship is being considered for some but not their guns, while free speech is an element that might be fringe but relative. Meanwhile in an earlier and adjacent thought, some of this new found legislative fury seem like WMD.** Weapons of Mass Distraction. It would seem that all this populist rancor is really keeping Homeland Securiy busy. And while I support all rights reasonably used, I cannot help but feel that it really is a burden on our security. A bit more responsible reporting and responsible associating might help, but then how one goes about that...almost makes me long for a unitary executive. BTW: the dot, dot, dot was a rhetorical segue or moot question.
My potential obtuseness was not an attempt to be excedingly careful***, yet the cause and effect might be anachronistic(i.e. flip-flopped). The links to previous word choices were not intentionally designed to be more than a search for my previous usage, but they do seem to bring up some previous associations which show the importance of the process and progress, not to mention providing hope.
(*) an alternative link.
(**) not that early: My first referencing of Weapon of Mass Distraction.
(***) but maybe an antidote to some talk show hosts that muddle the search for terrorist
[Oh, and I do not vouch for the legal analysis or terminology in my ABC's. And had not intended to close with the SCOTUS link when I set out. Let alone the less than inflammable association with security. But it does seem that it is wierd that flammable and moot have similar usage issues as does the roots or branches of Faust, let alone Devil's Advocates. But no, that is the legal process, not to mention political, and word and world modifying dynamics, or as I have stumbled out(or coined) "dymanics". I will conclude with the issue that there was some Beckian confusion in the topic of a National Prayer Day in regard to what was canceled and what is being fought and by whom. But the ideas which Thom Hartmann yesterday contrasted was a National Day of Reason to share and balance the National Day of Prayer. While I suggested a National Day of Faith. But would that be legal? Not without debate, moot and inflammable or not.]
Monday, January 30, 2012
Red Bull...
Has Wings,
It it any coincidence that Wisconsin is the home of Paul Ryan and Reince Priebus, and Scott Walker?
* previous Romney cracks in leadership: "haven't seen the ad"[!]
[It is sad that Reince Priebus believes that he is being funny, but I still can't be sure. (An Inconvenient Pie Chart)]
Republican Shadow Government calls for Obama Impeachment.
The Thom Hartmann Show, today.
Here are two further points. Not only is the crisis in leadership a myth in the form of the president not being a legislator and not being a unitary executive, but with Romney and his flip-flop of support of the Ryan plan, or rather support for social security and medicare, it may be the Republican plan. You see the trick might be that they can say anything, since it is not a law yet. Romney was for it before he was against it, but if the Republicans number one job was to make Obama a one term president, the substance of the bill was not important, because they did not want anything to be done. It would seem that Obamacares is a whole lot more flexible and must be in the right direction if they are running against it.
P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)
P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)
Friday, February 02, 2007
Congressional Oversight Needed!
To clarify the intentions of our laws.
Executive Order Expands Presidential Power Over Agencies
truthout.org : TheNewStandard :
The same old course. Deregulation of regulation.
"guidance"?
Here is my comment "out of the blue" so to speak: They got caught on Iraq, they got caught on signing statements, they got caught on the Plame blame and now the only buck to pass is to save some cash. It may seem innocuous enough, "Clinton did it", but give an inch, they take the Nile. Actually they have not really been caught, they just shift their banks... Hmmm. Meaning there is still a fight to be fought, if they can't have it over there, it is at home meanwhile.
ACCOUNTABILITY!
The executive branch is charged with administering the laws not making them. If they are not clear enough, then there needs to be more laws. Not an independent department of market forces.
Now my "out of the blue" was actually brought to the ground, what really came to my mind from above was this:
Market forces do not supply needs! They only supply value to wants and balance others. I don't know who said that but I am pretty sure someone should have. If not, it should be decreed, and get on with the job of government.
Molly Ivins is remembered and not coincidentally her writing also found in the link Accountability above at Bush the Unitary!
Executive Order Expands Presidential Power Over Agencies
truthout.org : TheNewStandard :
The same old course. Deregulation of regulation.
"guidance"?
Here is my comment "out of the blue" so to speak: They got caught on Iraq, they got caught on signing statements, they got caught on the Plame blame and now the only buck to pass is to save some cash. It may seem innocuous enough, "Clinton did it", but give an inch, they take the Nile. Actually they have not really been caught, they just shift their banks... Hmmm. Meaning there is still a fight to be fought, if they can't have it over there, it is at home meanwhile.
ACCOUNTABILITY!
The executive branch is charged with administering the laws not making them. If they are not clear enough, then there needs to be more laws. Not an independent department of market forces.
Now my "out of the blue" was actually brought to the ground, what really came to my mind from above was this:
Market forces do not supply needs! They only supply value to wants and balance others. I don't know who said that but I am pretty sure someone should have. If not, it should be decreed, and get on with the job of government.
Molly Ivins is remembered and not coincidentally her writing also found in the link Accountability above at Bush the Unitary!
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Ironically(and indubitably) Perry is Right!
Pun intended:
"You know yesterday the president said I needed to watch what I say."
"I just want to respond back, if I may. Mr. President, actions speak louder than words."
"My actions as Governor are helping create jobs in this country."
"The President’s actions are killing jobs."
[My bold added for a bit more context. The parsing is tricky, but it spins like a Texas Two-Step.]
And the president should take his advice, Go Left, Dear Sir*.
While context in an anthema to the Right,
nuance and parsing are a bitter pill for them, and a better bill** for the Left.
By not going whole hog or shifting from recovery to reform too soon, the President is killing jobs.
But he is not the unitary executive that can just get her done.
Perry and the QT party are too cute by their own Picard.
*7th minute on Public Priorities(Create Jobs 62%/Cut Spending 29%)
** 2 minute mark through 4:40
You know yesterday the president said I needed to watch what I say. I just want to respond back, if I may. Mr. President, actions speak louder than words. My actions as Governor are helping create jobs in this country. The President’s actions are killing jobs....but parsing more important:
"You know yesterday the president said I needed to watch what I say."
"I just want to respond back, if I may. Mr. President, actions speak louder than words."
"My actions as Governor are helping create jobs in this country."
"The President’s actions are killing jobs."
[My bold added for a bit more context. The parsing is tricky, but it spins like a Texas Two-Step.]
And the president should take his advice, Go Left, Dear Sir*.
While context in an anthema to the Right,
nuance and parsing are a bitter pill for them, and a better bill** for the Left.
By not going whole hog or shifting from recovery to reform too soon, the President is killing jobs.
But he is not the unitary executive that can just get her done.
Perry and the QT party are too cute by their own Picard.
*7th minute on Public Priorities(Create Jobs 62%/Cut Spending 29%)
** 2 minute mark through 4:40
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
October Surpise? "Power Broker Mountain"
It would be nice if the surprise were "no suprise".
It could be that it is National Character Counts Week,
but it is not the first.
Could it be that Humor Counts? Check first link.
Or could it be that there will be a National Straight Face Week.
See link again, imagining Bush reading it.
Maybe it should be National Tow The Line Week.
Just what is the connection?
When the Foley scandal first broke, I thought that
there may be one "heckuva" closet caucus.
Now it is more about what is being purged and why.
Here is the less than tenuous(That would be nine-you-us) connection to the nine little words that scared Reagan.
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help". He also had 3 little words that he liked but was quoting Lenin:
"Trust but verify."
The new nine:
"Just trust me, but don't ask, and don't tell".
They may purge voter roles and the closet caucus but with one party control our government is in the closet.
Actually with 12 words, it is more than tenuous.
"Just trust me, but don't ask, and don't tell, that's my job."
The Unitary Executive is a theory that seems more than controversial, but which is put to rest in the Military Commisions Act.
The irony is that while Wikipedia has an article which has it's neutrality in dispute; with the Institute for Public Accuracy has two views presented; and Findlaw has quite an extensive article, if it was more than just a theory, why the new law?
And why the closet image? It is really about "Power Broker Mountain".
If this is too much to read,
(and I never saw the movie, not that there was anything wrong with that)
the shortest read is Article II, section 2, PARAGRAPH TWO
of the constitution and see how much congress is responsible for the law and presidential powers, which now must come out of the closet.
Sections 3 and 4 are even shorter and thanks to fear and smear even deeper in the closet.
It could be that it is National Character Counts Week,
but it is not the first.
Could it be that Humor Counts? Check first link.
Or could it be that there will be a National Straight Face Week.
See link again, imagining Bush reading it.
Maybe it should be National Tow The Line Week.
Just what is the connection?
When the Foley scandal first broke, I thought that
there may be one "heckuva" closet caucus.
Now it is more about what is being purged and why.
Here is the less than tenuous(That would be nine-you-us) connection to the nine little words that scared Reagan.
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help". He also had 3 little words that he liked but was quoting Lenin:
"Trust but verify."
The new nine:
"Just trust me, but don't ask, and don't tell".
They may purge voter roles and the closet caucus but with one party control our government is in the closet.
Actually with 12 words, it is more than tenuous.
"Just trust me, but don't ask, and don't tell, that's my job."
The Unitary Executive is a theory that seems more than controversial, but which is put to rest in the Military Commisions Act.
The irony is that while Wikipedia has an article which has it's neutrality in dispute; with the Institute for Public Accuracy has two views presented; and Findlaw has quite an extensive article, if it was more than just a theory, why the new law?
And why the closet image? It is really about "Power Broker Mountain".
If this is too much to read,
(and I never saw the movie, not that there was anything wrong with that)
the shortest read is Article II, section 2, PARAGRAPH TWO
of the constitution and see how much congress is responsible for the law and presidential powers, which now must come out of the closet.
Sections 3 and 4 are even shorter and thanks to fear and smear even deeper in the closet.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Gitmo Got More
I don't know if it is mentioned here and I must look over my previous work, but the big news is the 8-4 [* should read 5-3 SEE BELOW]vote overruling Bush on his preemption and rendering of the constitution. Justice Roberts was sidelined because of conflict of interest rules that he upheld by recusing himself from the decision on a case that he had earlier ruled on.
That fact [his recusal] is mentioned but I do not think it is categorized as the big news, but it is a critical blow to a "unitary executive" if any Justice he selects must be "fair and balanced" not to mention follow rules,laws and the constitution.
Now it is a matter of not making new laws that will run this stay-the-course vicious recycle.
[* should read: "5-3" - keeping with my policy of not messing with my posts without notation, I must have done some wierd math, which indicates I should slow down. There were also no labels till now, and the thought of Hit and Run.] and a "run"+"Bush" search was what brought me here.]
That fact [his recusal] is mentioned but I do not think it is categorized as the big news, but it is a critical blow to a "unitary executive" if any Justice he selects must be "fair and balanced" not to mention follow rules,laws and the constitution.
Now it is a matter of not making new laws that will run this stay-the-course vicious recycle.
[* should read: "5-3" - keeping with my policy of not messing with my posts without notation, I must have done some wierd math, which indicates I should slow down. There were also no labels till now, and the thought of Hit and Run.] and a "run"+"Bush" search was what brought me here.]
Friday, May 19, 2006
Bush the United
Bush the Unitary*
The founding fathers are blue, or at least purple, meaning they are rolling over in their graves with sadness if not hopping mad. This image began as an intent to remedially read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by highlighting it in color for those that need help standing up for the principles contained in them. America should really be red as in the color of anger that the Republicans accuse Democrats of being full of. Doubly red for the embarrassment that we are exporting "so called Democracy" while undermining it at home.
A little color in their cheeks should be left over for the "so called Liberal Media" which if it were really so liberal, would be shouting from the roof tops or at least on all networks about a law suit brought by a few in Congress suing Bush for violating the Constitution by signing SB 1932 which that did not pass through the House. Not to mention the 750 laws that Bush has signed but noted he will not follow. OK...That is my slight exaggeration. The "he will not follow" not the number 750 necessarily (one is enough). These should be under the heading of Bush Pre-Justice, not to mention Pre-Legislate and Pre-Administration, and never mind chain of command. READ THIS:
Article II: Section 2. paragraphs 2 and 3
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.
My bold and italics added instead of the color code that should insight(i).
It should be noted how much emphasis there is on the senate and the law regarding the powers of the executive. Rememeber how "philosophy" was so important in his selections for appointment, not to mention** loyalty.
* link added after the first two paragraphs posted here.
(i) = intentionally construed.
** link added last and is noted as not necessarily balanced and not fully read by myself but from what I did read, had already selected here the pertinent sections that refute.
*** It may be important to explain here (it seems) that these executive powers are only vested by law, by the senate, to whom they alone choose.
The founding fathers are blue, or at least purple, meaning they are rolling over in their graves with sadness if not hopping mad. This image began as an intent to remedially read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by highlighting it in color for those that need help standing up for the principles contained in them. America should really be red as in the color of anger that the Republicans accuse Democrats of being full of. Doubly red for the embarrassment that we are exporting "so called Democracy" while undermining it at home.
A little color in their cheeks should be left over for the "so called Liberal Media" which if it were really so liberal, would be shouting from the roof tops or at least on all networks about a law suit brought by a few in Congress suing Bush for violating the Constitution by signing SB 1932 which that did not pass through the House. Not to mention the 750 laws that Bush has signed but noted he will not follow. OK...That is my slight exaggeration. The "he will not follow" not the number 750 necessarily (one is enough). These should be under the heading of Bush Pre-Justice, not to mention Pre-Legislate and Pre-Administration, and never mind chain of command. READ THIS:
Article II: Section 2. paragraphs 2 and 3
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.
My bold and italics added instead of the color code that should insight(i).
It should be noted how much emphasis there is on the senate and the law regarding the powers of the executive. Rememeber how "philosophy" was so important in his selections for appointment, not to mention** loyalty.
* link added after the first two paragraphs posted here.
(i) = intentionally construed.
** link added last and is noted as not necessarily balanced and not fully read by myself but from what I did read, had already selected here the pertinent sections that refute.
*** It may be important to explain here (it seems) that these executive powers are only vested by law, by the senate, to whom they alone choose.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
CON TEXT / CON SCIENCE ABOUT THE PROCESS!
Filibuster Alito for Constitution's Sake
An Open Letter to SENATORS(in particular moderates who bargained away their duties for the sake of protecting Senate traditions and rules regarding the filibuster)
(Slightly edited from fax sent 1-18-06 to)
Honorable Senator Nelson:
A "unitary philosophy" puts you out of a job, and the people out of the picture. This philosophy has existed prior to the unprecedented selection of Bush over the people. The (constitutional)design of three branches of government requires each to do it's job, and the process (in you) are the arbiters. If you do not stand for the people and the constitution’s principles, do you know what you are standing for?
I feel that it is crucial that you oppose Mr. Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.
If that is not possible due to the political dangers of your area, it is at least crucial that you stand for the terms of your judicial compromise that prevented the busting of the filibuster in earlier nominations to the judiciary. UNLESS of course that you feel that the Democrats had the opportunity for "advice and consent" as explained in said document.
Politics and the law are more than games, they make the rules for the games that are our lives. Please do not gamble that things cannot get worse or that you can know what is in the conscience* of one that seems to be above the law. That is their philosophy as stated by Bush and demonstrated by his actions. Their conscience is above the law, is yours?
Failing to persuade you on your vote on Alito, at least stand up for your compromise, do not vote for cloture.
* During Bush's 2000 campaign, I noted when he pointed out that his conscience was above any campaign laws. That may have been the Rubicon, now we may only have politics, tyranny or anarchy.
An Open Letter to SENATORS(in particular moderates who bargained away their duties for the sake of protecting Senate traditions and rules regarding the filibuster)
(Slightly edited from fax sent 1-18-06 to)
Honorable Senator Nelson:
A "unitary philosophy" puts you out of a job, and the people out of the picture. This philosophy has existed prior to the unprecedented selection of Bush over the people. The (constitutional)design of three branches of government requires each to do it's job, and the process (in you) are the arbiters. If you do not stand for the people and the constitution’s principles, do you know what you are standing for?
I feel that it is crucial that you oppose Mr. Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.
If that is not possible due to the political dangers of your area, it is at least crucial that you stand for the terms of your judicial compromise that prevented the busting of the filibuster in earlier nominations to the judiciary. UNLESS of course that you feel that the Democrats had the opportunity for "advice and consent" as explained in said document.
Politics and the law are more than games, they make the rules for the games that are our lives. Please do not gamble that things cannot get worse or that you can know what is in the conscience* of one that seems to be above the law. That is their philosophy as stated by Bush and demonstrated by his actions. Their conscience is above the law, is yours?
Failing to persuade you on your vote on Alito, at least stand up for your compromise, do not vote for cloture.
* During Bush's 2000 campaign, I noted when he pointed out that his conscience was above any campaign laws. That may have been the Rubicon, now we may only have politics, tyranny or anarchy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)