And the System just keeps on working! by Geezer

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Democracy is powered by citizen participation. The minute that stops, it all becomes a sham.

True. And to save both my typing fingers, I'll quote again.

Quote:

Dead" or "Settled" issues are in fact dead and settled as far as the law is concerned. Only if the people can convince their representatives to attempt to make changes to the law, or the representatives themselves see a reason to try and change them, do they become active again... Just because something is settled law doesn't mean people can't, or shouldn't, debate, argue, politic, petition, or otherwise act on it; but until a request for change hits either the legislative or the legal system, it's the law of the land.
----------
If the people can convince someone to take that action (impeaching the president), that's fine. That's the way it works, and I think it's a pretty good idea.
----------
Sure it matters, if the people act through their elected representatives. If enough of them act to get change moving. If the idea takes hold. If they vote the rascals out. If they give their congressperson the word that they'll be looking for a lobbying job after the next election of they don't toe the line.
----------
How many ways do I have to say it? The people drive the process, but they have to do it within the process. People who want change have to convince enough other people, by whatever legal means, to get their representatives off their asses and start the legal process that makes change happen.

If you can do this and get Bush impeached, or convicted, or whatever, more power to you. The system worked. If you and those who think like you can't convince enough people to convince their reps to do it, then you fought the good fight and lost, and the system worked.
----------
I'm trying to say that in the real world of the American system it doesn't matter a damn what you as an individual think. It matters what you and enough other people who'll bug their congresspeople to do something think. Majority rules, unless it's unconstitutional. This applies even if the majority decide to sit on their butts and do nothing.

I don't doubt that you passionately believe you are right. You may be right. But if enough other people don't agree with you to move the legislative process forward, you're not going to accomplish anything for a while. Maybe later they'll come around to your point of view. It's happened before. How long did it take for women to get the vote? You don't have to give up, but you must realize that the system takes time. Wishing doesn't make it so. You have to sell your ideas. Think long-term. Maybe Bush is good for your eventual goals, as others have noted above.

What part of "I support citizens' participation in government" don't you get?

Quote:
The problem in the US is there is no 'loyal opposition'. NO opposition is allowed because, according to Bush, you are either with him or you are with the terrorists.

And you think everyone kowtows to Bush's opinion why?

Quote:
That seems to be your take, Slick. You have to be perfect to criticize, patient not vocal, and a watcher rather than participant. Your misplaced notion of Democracy is as a structure of government rather than an active process.

I quote myself yet again.

Quote:
How many ways do I have to say it? The people drive the process, but they have to do it within the process. People who want change have to convince enough other people, by whatever legal means, to get their representatives off their asses and start the legal process that makes change happen.

Quote:
That aside, John Dean said in an interview yesterday that when people become afraid, they turn to authoritarian governments like Bush's. So I was wondering, what are you afraid of?

Well, apparently Mr. Dean would be glad to be the "Loyal Opposition".

And what am I afraid of? I'm afraid of a country run by the SignyMs and Rues, who don't care what the people decide, because they're smarter and KNOW what's best for everyone.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 6:19 AM

I wanted to pull some statements out from this thread and elaborate on them.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Democracy is powered by citizen participation. The minute that stops, it all becomes a sham.

Our bathroom reading this week is Helen Thomas' latest book. In the forward she echoes those who wrote the Federalist Papers (and countless other authors):

Quote:
from Watchdogs of Democracy? by Helen Thomas (page xiii)
"Journalists, as the purveyors of information, are the watch-dogs of democracy. Without an informed people, there can be no democracy. It is the job of reporters and editors to ask the tough questions of those in power and to act on the answers with trust, integrity, and honesty guiding their judgement. These ethical tenets have never changed, but jornalism has changed over time - most would say not necessarily for the better."

We all do our jobs. We should be able to read the morning paper and watch the evening news and be reliably informed about the state of our government. But, thanks in part to the decades long war against journalists waged by conservatives, we have an industry that would rather repeat claim and counter-claim without any verification. If you want to be reliably informed you have to do the work yourself. Because journalists don't do their jobs the only way for us to have an informed citizenry is for the rest of us to take on another job (I'm reminded of Stewart's plea to Carlson).

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer
But that's the thing. The system usually does work, although sometimes more slowly than we'd like. If Bush stepped out of line on prisoner treatment, the system brought him back in line. If someone can prove his actions were criminal, instead of just in a grey area of law, fine and good.

You're assuming that Bush believes the Supreme Court should be allowed to have an opinion different from his own. I think it's more likely that he holds the belief, as articulated by the acting Deputy Attorney General yesterday in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, "The President is always right." By implication, the Supreme Court is wrong when they disagree with him. And until he gets another Supreme Court justice on the bench (who will, like Alito and Roberts, be a believer in the unitary executive theory) he will treat them the same way he treats Congress. I think it's a safe bet that two years ago the Hamdan decision would have been more like 7-2 rather than 5-3 (and really, 5-4).

I hope John Paul Stevens is eating his Wheaties. And I also hope that the prominent conservative pundits who are calling for violence and death for the 5 in the majority on Hamdan don't get their way.

After the 2000 election, my girlfriend was depressed at the thought of another Bush in the White House. I told her that he couldn't do that much damage in four years. Man, was I wrong on that one. And no way did I think it was going to be eight years. And now, based on all of his decisions to simply ignore the rule of law and the checks and balances, I'm starting to wonder if it ends at eight years.

Who says he is ready to leave in 2009? Remember, "The President is always right."

* edit (on account of brain farting) to change 2001 to 2000 and correctly spell Hamdan.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 6:35 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
..And now, based on all of his decisions to simply ignore the rule of law and the checks and balances, I'm starting to wonder if it ends at eight years.

ayup. It isn't too hard to imagine. How about this, as the 2008 elections roll around, Rove goads Democrats in to pre-emptive protests against the corrupt election process. Accusations fly, conspiracies are 'uncovered', denied, covered back up etc., etc.... Legal challenges are mounted in several states questioning the validity of computerized voting. Prominent leaders announce their intention to ignore election results unless the problems are resolved. Dogs and cats, living together! How could we possibly hold an election in the midst of such chaos?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 6:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer- I don't know what's "right". But I DO know that unless people get involved their interests will get drowned out. Shutting up, not bitching, and trusting "the system" is a sure-fire recipe for getting screwed. It's happened so often in the past that it's the one thing I CAN say for sure about "the system".

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 6:59 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
You're assuming that Bush believes the Supreme Court should be allowed to have an opinion different from his own. I think it's more likely that he holds the belief, as articulated by the acting Deputy Attorney General yesterday in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, "The President is always right." By implication, the Supreme Court is wrong when they disagree with him.

I'm assuming that the government(not the Bush Administration, but the Government as a whole) believes that if the President and the Supreme Court have differing opinions, the Supremes win. I assume that the people would agree.

I also figure that Bush's lawyers' position at the Senate hearings is, amusingly enough, pretty much like the North Koreans always use at the beginning of any negotiation, and that they expect to get talked way down.

Quote:
And I also hope that the prominent conservative pundits who are calling for violence and death for the 5 in the majority on Hamden don't get their way.

Me too. Just because they have freedom of speech doesn't mean they should talk like idiots.

Quote:
Who says he is ready to leave in 2009? Remember, "The President is always right."

If that happens in an unconstitutional way, I'll be right there on the barricades with you to take our country back.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 7:11 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- I don't know what's "right". But I DO know that unless people get involved their interests will get drowned out. Shutting up, not bitching, and trusting "the system" is a sure-fire recipe for getting screwed. It's happened so often in the past that it's the one thing I CAN say for sure about "the system".

Quote:
How many ways do I have to say it? The people drive the process, but they have to do it within the process. People who want change have to convince enough other people, by whatever legal means, to get their representatives off their asses and start the legal process that makes change happen.

I'm really not clear what part of this you think you disagree with. "...by whatever legal means..." includes bitching, although other alternatives might be more effective.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 7:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sigh. I'm not one of those people who can't take "yes" for an answer. I'll dig up your old posts.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 7:51 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sigh. I'm not one of those people who can't take "yes" for an answer. I'll dig up your old posts.

Please look at the totality of what I've been saying here. Don't pick through the whole mass just to find one sentence.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 7:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I'm assuming that the government(not the Bush Administration, but the Government as a whole) believes that if the President and the Supreme Court have differing opinions, the Supremes win. I assume that the people would agree.

Fair enough. If we look at the government as a whole, the Executive branch has been stacked with unitary executive believers, the Congress has not substantively challenged the application of the unitary executive theory, and the Supreme Court is within one vote of being dominated by unitary executive believers.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I also figure that Bush's lawyers' position at the Senate hearings is, amusingly enough, pretty much like the North Koreans always use at the beginning of any negotiation, and that they expect to get talked way down.

In reading the transcript, the statement came after repeated questioning by Senator Leahy on whether the President was right or wrong in stating that the Hamdan decision supported his position on Guantanamo (it did not). It seemed to me more like a conversation ender rather than a conversation starter.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
And I also hope that the prominent conservative pundits who are calling for violence and death for the 5 in the majority on Hamden don't get their way.

Me too. Just because they have freedom of speech doesn't mean they should talk like idiots.

One of the things I like about freedom of speech is that it lets you know who the scary people are.
However, I expect widespread condemnation of statements such as the one I referenced.

edited to add: When someone who has little or no platform makes ludicrous statements, the best policy is to ignore them (IMHO). When someone who has a big platform makes ludicrous statements, the best thing is for their peers and allies to condemn them (also, IMHO). edited one more time: I should've said condemn the statements.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
If that happens in an unconstitutional way, I'll be right there on the barricades with you to take our country back.

Amen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:01 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Slick,

Quote:
Only if the people can convince their representatives to attempt to make changes to the law

But people have no right to discuss with each other? To try and convince other people? To debate each other? So that when YOU say the issue is settled in law, that's the end of any discussion?

I am not trying to run the government to my individual wishes. I am not trying to erase debate between citizens. What don't YOU get about that?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:55 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick,
Quote:
Only if the people can convince their representatives to attempt to make changes to the law
But people have no right to discuss with each other? To try and convince other people? To debate each other? So that when YOU say the issue is settled in law, that's the end of any discussion?

Hmmmm.... maybe I missed something, as I haven't had time to throroughly scan this thread, but I thought Geezer had merely said that its a dead issue 'as far as the law is concerned.' That sounds about right. Is he really trying tell us all to shut up? Does it even matter?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:14 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick, But people have no right to discuss with each other? To try and convince other people? To debate each other? So that when YOU say the issue is settled in law, that's the end of any discussion?

Copy and paste is my friend.

Quote:
"Dead" or "Settled" issues are in fact dead and settled as far as the law is concerned. Only if the people can convince their representatives to attempt to make changes to the law, or the representatives themselves see a reason to try and change them, do they become active again... Just because something is settled law doesn't mean people can't, or shouldn't, debate, argue, politic, petition, or otherwise act on it; but until a request for change hits either the legislative or the legal system, it's the law of the land.

Why do I get the feeling you purposefully take sections of my quotes out of context just so you don't have to suffer the indignity of finding that you agree with what I'm saying?

Quote:
I am not trying to run the government to my individual wishes. I am not trying to erase debate between citizens. What don't YOU get about that?

I get it. See my quote above. Note especially the underlined part.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:19 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm going to concatenate Geezer statements, possibly slightly out of order.

Quote:
And the System just keeps on working!

If someone can get an indictment, prove treason, and get a conviction - the system will have worked one more time, just like it's supposed to. On the other hand, if no one, despite their best efforts, can gather enough evidence to get the process rolling then the system will also have worked.

If we get a conviction, it works! If we don't get a conviction, it works!- SignyM

If someone can prove his actions were criminal, instead of just in a grey area of law, fine and good.

In a bi-partisan system, why would one party not use such evidence to support and advance their ideology by damaging the standing of the other party? Just as an example, if the Democrats have evidence that Bush, Cheney, et.al. broke the laws, wouldn't it be to their advantage to move for prosecution or impeachment?

Assuming that they control the committees- which they don't- SignyM

As far as the law is concerned, Bush is the President. As far as I know, there is no serious effort afoot to challenge the 2000 or 2004 presidential elections. In a bit over two years, it'll be a moot point anyway, because Bush will have served his second term and can't be re-elected. If there's a legal challenge to the election at this late date, then maybe things will change. Until then it's a dead issue.

You can argue that Bush didn't win the election all you want, but unless someone takes legal action, it's just a philosophical excercise. If it ain't proven in court, it ain't fraud.... If the Democrats thought they could prove fraud, they should have tried. They didn't. Dead issue.

I don't know how you read that, but I read that as a big shut up. "If it's not in the courts it's a dead issue" Now I don't know about you, but I don't go around talking about dead issues... except maybe Geezer since he's my favorite dead issue... and I certainly don' try to do anything about them. What I'm hearing is... Don't talk about possible miscarriages of justice, don't try to make sure that the next elections are above reproach, don't engage in "philosophical exercises".
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:40 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I don't know how you read that, but I read that as a big shut up.

I read that left to right like most people do.

Did not get 'a big shut up' out of it though. Must be our differing viewpoints.

Quote:

Now I don't know about you, but I don't go around talking about dead issues...

Would you consider slavery a dead issue?

Quote:

What I'm hearing is... Don't talk about possible miscarriages of justice, don't try to make sure that the next elections are above reproach, don't engage in "philosophical exercises".

Philosophise away to your hearts content. But real change must come about through the system, slow and flawed though it may be. At least that's what I got out of Geezers posts.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:53 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And I guess my point is that real change preceeds the system and often occurs despite the system. That it occurs when some tipping point is reached and "enough" people change their minds... like the American Revolution, or the teachings of Jesus, or capitalism... all new philosophies that took hold even tho the system was screaming and kicking all the way.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:55 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BTW- I don't consider slavery a dead issue. The forces that make slavery an attractive economic option are still present. So slavery is a worldwide fact of life and even (still) occurs in the USA.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW- I don't consider slavery a dead issue. The forces that make slavery an attractive economic option are still present. So slavery is a worldwide fact of life and even (still) occurs in the USA.

And I'd like to add that the particular brand of racism that grew up around the slave trade, was created in part to aid in the implementation of the slave trade, continues to be part of our nation. Just because slavery was outlawed does not mean that the mindset that allowed people to condone the owning of human beings disappeared.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 3:02 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I see SignyM beat me to it, but I have some lengthy quotes, not "snippets out of context":

In a bi-partisan system, why would one party not use such evidence to support and advance their ideology by damaging the standing of the other party? Just as an example, if the Democrats have evidence that Bush, Cheney, et.al. broke the laws, wouldn't it be to their advantage to move for prosecution or impeachment?

Not quite. You allege fraud. If it ain't proven in court, it ain't fraud. Innocent until proven guilty. If the Democrats thought they could prove fraud, they should have tried. They didn't. Dead issue.

Slavery was settled law until outlawed by a Constitutional Amendment.

As far as I know, there is no serious effort afoot to challenge the 2000 or 2004 presidential elections If there's a legal challenge to the election at this late date, then maybe things will change. Until then it's a dead issue.

"Dead" or "Settled" issues are in fact dead and settled as far as the law is concerned. Only if the people can convince their representatives to attempt to make changes to the law, or the representatives themselves see a reason to try and change them, do they become active again.

The 13th Amendment is now settled law, unless someone manages to introduce a Constitutional Amendment allowing slavery.
The 18th Amendment was settled law, until the proposal of what ended up as the 21st amendment, which led to its repeal.

Just because something is settled law doesn't mean people can't, or shouldn't, debate, argue, politic, petition, or otherwise act on it; but until a request for change hits either the legislative or the legal system, it's the law of the land.

The thing is, it doesn't matter if .... everybody else in the country don't like Bush. It doesn't matter if the only person who thinks he should be President is his mother. Until some legal action is taken, either in the legislature or the courts, to remove him from office, he's the un-challenged President of the United States. If the people can convince someone to take that action, that's fine.

Sure it matters, if the people act through their elected representatives. If enough of them act to get change moving. If the idea takes hold. If they vote the rascals out. If they give their congressperson the word that they'll be looking for a lobbying job after the next election of they don't toe the line.

What I get out of this is there is simply no room for US in the process. It's up to the courts, the parties, the legislators and "them". Anything else is a dead issue.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 13, 2006 2:14 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What I get out of this is there is simply no room for US in the process. It's up to the courts, the parties, the legislators and "them". Anything else is a dead issue.

Please explain to me how US, the people, can get laws and policies changed without going throught the legislative process; how we can get justice without going through the courts.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think one of the geniuses of the American system is that is allows peaceful change. And the freedoms that are granted to us - speech and assembly- promote change by allowing us to philosophize together. (freedoms that corporate media and the Administration are persistently carving away) But the impetus for change doesn't come from the system. It comes when a new paradigm takes hold. How that manifests itself can't always be predicted. Sometimes it's in the form of changes of buying habits, direct activism, cooperation (free software) or even simple social pressure. (It's impossible for a woman to say she's had an abortion even if it's perfectly legal.)

If I want to change society, I would first aim to change opinion, and then people should aim to change the law. But the courts and the law aren't the only way to effect change- look at Bush, the right wing, and the corporations. They KNOW that their "feed the rich" right-wing Xtian agenda doesn't have majority support (by opnion poll) and so they've explored every loophole and ferreted out every weakness... and broken more than a few laws... to impose their opinion on everyone else.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:14 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If I want to change society, I would first aim to change opinion, and then people should aim to change the law.

Please explain to me how this statement differs from:

"The people drive the process, but they have to do it within the process. People who want change have to convince enough other people, by whatever legal means, to get their representatives off their asses and start the legal process that makes change happen."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:30 AM

I got a couple steaks to throw on this barbie, ok?

Firstoff, the definition of "Treason" is expressly spelled out in the Constitution itself, just to prevent it from being arbitrarily thrown around.

Article III, Section 3 - Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Much as I despise the shrub, the term Treason does not, so far, apply to his actions, negligence and incompetence, those I'll give you, surely - but the T word is expressly and specifically defined in the USC for a very good reason.

Now, Clintons trial was fairly partisan, that I also give you, and between us folk I could really care less who the Pres is humping, as long as he does his job - HOWEVER....

The president can be impeached and removed from office for ANY crime, specifically including a misdemeanor, or petty crime - I jest not.

Article II - Section 4 - 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.

And what that means, is that when *convicted* of some crap, they're out, Congress, Cabinet, Veep, Prez - the intention of the law is that upon conviction, you're gone.

The system does *NOT* work, when you ignore the rules, and both sides have, for a long time.

The system only works when the rules are explicitly followed, which, in truth, and historically, they have NEVER been - Adams and Lincoln, for example, pissed all over freedom of the press during their tenure in office - the enforcement of those rules falls to congress, and if congress should fail - it falls to US, and I do not mean standing around holding signs either.
Thus the purpose of Amendment #2.

But it is in mankinds nature to bear those evils that can be borne, rather than stand up and risk their comfortable existences to do something about it - that was true even in Shakespeares day (as Hamlet expounds quite a bit on the topic) and thus, they sit back and suffer and grumble.

Believe you me, if a congressional rep or two got tarred and feathered by an angry mob of their constituents, it'd send an awful clear message, but things are so far gone they'd probably bomb the neighborhood in retaliation - realistically, the best thing one can do is just take cover and let the inevitable implosion occur, and pick up the pieces when it does, and THEN build wisely.

In order for the system to work, "we the people" have to be a *threat* to the leadership, that must be appeased, and we're not.

"People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people." - V (As portrayed by Hugo Weaving).

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:30 AM

Deadlock whahuh?
I need that in captain dummy talk...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Slick,
Please explain to me why "dead issues" are beyond discussion.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:12 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick,
Please explain to me why "dead issues" are beyond discussion.

They're not. You can discuss, say, the 2004 election all you want. You can convince other people that it was fraudulent. You can hold rallies and marches. You can put up billboards. You can post in chatrooms. You can build a massive consensus that the election was fixed.

For all this to actually accomplish anything substantive (i.e. getting the election overturned) you have to apply this massive consensus to pressure either the legislature or the courts to re-open the issue of the 2004 election. Until that point, Bush is still legally President, and the 2004 election is a legal dead issue.

I think I said something similar earlier. Yes, here it is.

"Just because something is settled law doesn't mean people can't, or shouldn't, debate, argue, politic, petition, or otherwise act on it; but until a request for change hits either the legislative or the legal system, it's the law of the land."

Now, after you have built the massive consensus noted above, you might instead apply it to move the legislature to create a voting system less open to possible fraud. That might be more worthwhile in the long run, and more doable than trying to get Bush kicked out.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:41 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Slick,

Why do you persist in taking small snippets out of context? I think you said something dissimilar earlier. Yes, here it is.

In a bi-partisan system, why would one party not use such evidence to support and advance their ideology by damaging the standing of the other party? Just as an example, if the Democrats have evidence that Bush, Cheney, et.al. broke the laws, wouldn't it be to their advantage to move for prosecution or impeachment?

Not quite. You allege fraud. If it ain't proven in court, it ain't fraud. Innocent until proven guilty. If the Democrats thought they could prove fraud, they should have tried. They didn't. Dead issue.

Slavery was settled law until outlawed by a Constitutional Amendment.

As far as I know, there is no serious effort afoot to challenge the 2000 or 2004 presidential elections If there's a legal challenge to the election at this late date, then maybe things will change. Until then it's a dead issue.

"Dead" or "Settled" issues are in fact dead and settled as far as the law is concerned. Only if the people can convince their representatives to attempt to make changes to the law, or the representatives themselves see a reason to try and change them, do they become active again.

The 13th Amendment is now settled law, unless someone manages to introduce a Constitutional Amendment allowing slavery.
The 18th Amendment was settled law, until the proposal of what ended up as the 21st amendment, which led to its repeal.

Just because something is settled law doesn't mean people can't, or shouldn't, debate, argue, politic, petition, or otherwise act on it; but until a request for change hits either the legislative or the legal system, it's the law of the land.

The thing is, it doesn't matter if .... everybody else in the country don't like Bush. It doesn't matter if the only person who thinks he should be President is his mother. Until some legal action is taken, either in the legislature or the courts, to remove him from office, he's the un-challenged President of the United States. If the people can convince someone to take that action, that's fine.

Sure it matters, if the people act through their elected representatives. If enough of them act to get change moving. If the idea takes hold. If they vote the rascals out. If they give their congressperson the word that they'll be looking for a lobbying job after the next election of they don't toe the line.

What I get out of this is there is simply no room for US in the process. It's up to the courts, the parties, the legislators and "them". Anything else is a dead issue.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:51 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick,

Why do you persist in taking small snippets out of context? I think you said something dissimilar earlier. Yes, here it is.

In a bi-partisan system, why would one party not use such evidence to support and advance their ideology by damaging the standing of the other party? Just as an example, if the Democrats have evidence that Bush, Cheney, et.al. broke the laws, wouldn't it be to their advantage to move for prosecution or impeachment?

Not quite. You allege fraud. If it ain't proven in court, it ain't fraud. Innocent until proven guilty. If the Democrats thought they could prove fraud, they should have tried. They didn't. Dead issue.

Slavery was settled law until outlawed by a Constitutional Amendment.

As far as I know, there is no serious effort afoot to challenge the 2000 or 2004 presidential elections If there's a legal challenge to the election at this late date, then maybe things will change. Until then it's a dead issue.

"Dead" or "Settled" issues are in fact dead and settled as far as the law is concerned. Only if the people can convince their representatives to attempt to make changes to the law, or the representatives themselves see a reason to try and change them, do they become active again.

The 13th Amendment is now settled law, unless someone manages to introduce a Constitutional Amendment allowing slavery.
The 18th Amendment was settled law, until the proposal of what ended up as the 21st amendment, which led to its repeal.

Just because something is settled law doesn't mean people can't, or shouldn't, debate, argue, politic, petition, or otherwise act on it; but until a request for change hits either the legislative or the legal system, it's the law of the land.

The thing is, it doesn't matter if .... everybody else in the country don't like Bush. It doesn't matter if the only person who thinks he should be President is his mother. Until some legal action is taken, either in the legislature or the courts, to remove him from office, he's the un-challenged President of the United States. If the people can convince someone to take that action, that's fine.

Sure it matters, if the people act through their elected representatives. If enough of them act to get change moving. If the idea takes hold. If they vote the rascals out. If they give their congressperson the word that they'll be looking for a lobbying job after the next election of they don't toe the line.

What I get out of this is there is simply no room for US in the process. It's up to the courts, the parties, the legislators and "them". Anything else is a dead issue.

Please provide specifics as to how you disagree with these statements. Maybe I'm just not getting your point. Maybe you're not getting my point. Maybe you're just being an ass. Clarify my confusion.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 13, 2006 6:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FREM- Outing a CIA officer (one who was working on WMD and Iran) in time of war is treason. Novak has said in writing that Rove confirmed Plame's identity. What Rove SHOULD have said was "I can't discuss it". There was at least one other source- known to both Novak and Fitzgerald- who was the initial leak.

For whatever reason, this crime (and it is a crime) is not being prosecuted despite publically acknowledged evidence.

IGNORING Osama bin Laden- pulling troops from Afghanistan to focus on Iraq, and making side deals with Pakistan's Pervez Musharef is also giving aid and comfort to the enemy (bin Laden)

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:34 AM

HIPPIEBROWNCOAT

Oooh, i'm going to make some enemies here.

I am a hippie. I basically believe in peace, food, justice, and respect for all living things. But i do make an exception for terrorist-folk. And i believe that we should not be held to Geneva Conventions regarding these people. This is a war, true, but they are not part of a recognized country. They are part of a faction (or factions) of militants whose goal is to reign terror, death, destruction, fear, and pain on our country and others. They took this path of their own free will. I don't want to think about what they are very likely doing to our prisioners. They are prepared to die. I am not down with killing prisioners of this war-type-thing, but i strongly believe that if smacking some of them around could save hundreds or thousands of civillian lives, well, here, i'll go find a club right now. I understand that it would be very noble of us "not to sink to that level," but sometimes you've got to play dirty. Just how noble would it be to let innocent folk die in masses just to uphold our good name? (which in case anyone hasn't noticed, isn't terribly good anyways.)

I hate Bush and his administration of cronies as much as the next person with two brain cells rubbing together. I do believe that he got us into this mess, or at the very least let it get so bad. Whatever. I know that our country is in a big damn mess with no purty way out. So i don't see what's so important about sparing some hateful, dangerous people a few bruises in the name of saving lives.

Oh, i am a tweaked one, yes i am...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 13, 2006 8:21 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You're PRESUMING the people in Gitmo ARE terrorists just because they are there.

The problem is that many of 'those people' were turned in by warlords and Pakistanis for the US bounty on 'terrorists'. Nearly all of them have no evidence against them except the word of someone looking for a couple thousand and/ or revenge.

Aside from presuming guilt, there is also a deep strain of lumping all of 'them' together in your post and assigning hateful traits to 'them', without actually knowing much about 'them'. You need to reevaluate the basis for your notions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:48 PM

I know a lotta folk feel that way, Sig, but ya need two witnesses to an overt act, or a direct confession, and in order to be an 'overt act' the full intention to commit treason has to be there, not just the petty jackassery this administration is known for.

The pulling troops and the side deals is debateable under the guise of military strategy and necessity and/or diplomacy, no matter how incompetent, and to fry someone for outing Plame, you need to meet the 'two witnesses, overt act, confession' minimum standard.

Not sayin the bastards aren't traitorous, just saying that to charge someone with capital-T "Treason" has very specific requirements in the Constitution, and has em for very good reasons.

We can't play fast and loose with the rules and hold the moral high ground too.

Criminal prosecution for sure though, cause outing Plame blinded us just when we most needed the specific intel she was workin on - that was downright STUPID, and likely caused some fatal repercussions amongst our cutout agents, something no one else has bothered to mention, but I feel the need, since in essence, they got those folks killed.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 13, 2006 1:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Criminal prosecution for sure though, cause outing Plame blinded us just when we most needed the specific intel she was workin on - that was downright STUPID, and likely caused some fatal repercussions amongst our cutout agents, something no one else has bothered to mention, but I feel the need, since in essence, they got those folks killed.

The Wilsons filed a civil suit today against Cheney, Libby, Rove, and unnamed others. Sort of relevant to the topic.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/060713/20060713005646.html?.v=1

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 13, 2006 1:47 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
The Wilsons filed a civil suit today against Cheney, Libby, Rove, and unnamed others. Sort of relevant to the topic.

Damn! The system does work.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Damn! The system does work.

Actually, I did want to get your opinion on the legislation Arlen Specter is working on.

Quick summary: The Bush administration has not used the FISA court to get warrants for much of their information gathering. Their argument was that, since Congress didn't specifically tell them not to in the authorization to use force, it was okay to not follow the protocols. The Hamdan decision kind of blew that theory out of the water. So Specter is working on a bill that would make what the Administration is doing legit. Okay. That part is fine. Let's have the debate. It's what the Administration should have asked for when they started doing this type of information gathering (rather than just ignore the law).

But part of Specter's bill would retroactively bring into compliance what the Administration did. Pardon their law-breaking, in other words.

Is that the system working?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 13, 2006 6:42 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Sig,

I understand what your saying but for now I remain optimistic. Not that I don't think that the system of checks and balances isn't in any danger. My hope is the latest Supreme Court deceision shows that the sysetm is resilient enough to outlast the efforts of the present administration.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 14, 2006 2:37 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Actually, I did want to get your opinion on the legislation Arlen Specter is working on.

Quick summary: The Bush administration has not used the FISA court to get warrants for much of their information gathering. Their argument was that, since Congress didn't specifically tell them not to in the authorization to use force, it was okay to not follow the protocols. The Hamdan decision kind of blew that theory out of the water. So Specter is working on a bill that would make what the Administration is doing legit. Okay. That part is fine. Let's have the debate. It's what the Administration should have asked for when they started doing this type of information gathering (rather than just ignore the law).

But part of Specter's bill would retroactively bring into compliance what the Administration did. Pardon their law-breaking, in other words.

Is that the system working?

Pretty much.

You believe that the Administration chose to ignore the law, and the bill would pardon their law-breaking. Some people agree with you.

Other people believe that the Administration did what it considered both legal and necessary to accomplish its job, and that the bill will clarify the uncertainty around their actions brought about by the Hamdan decision.

Other people probably believe something else.

All sides have the opportunity to let their representatives know their feelings. Protest, Send emails, call, write, respond to polls, etc. The representatives have the ability to pass, amend, or defeat the bill. If, whatever the representatives do, enough people don't like it, they can vote the bastards out. If someone makes a Constitutional challenge, the Supremes may get to rule on it.

No matter what happens, someone will not be happy. That's part of the system working too.

At this point in my lecture someone usually points to the party affiliations, pressure groups, corporate lobbies, personal interests, re-election considerations, and on and on, which keep this system from working perfectly. I've never claimed it works perfectly, just better than anything else that's come along. I also think that improvements are possible within the system. It's up to the people to get them.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 14, 2006 3:15 AM

Quote:
But part of Specter's bill would retroactively bring into compliance what the Administration did. Pardon their law-breaking, in other words.

Ex-Post-Facto.
Constitutionally Invalid.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 14, 2006 10:41 AM

Update.

The latest version of Specter's bill does not contain the amnesty granting provision.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 14, 2006 6:28 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Update.

The latest version of Specter's bill does not contain the amnesty granting provision.

Works!

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 11:59 AM