Telling. And, sad.
I don't know about you, I have a tendency to dream about it...
This
This
And this. (And not necessarily in that order)
I just don't understand what is wrong with these haters.
Posted on 06/24/2004 7:16:23 AM PDT by green iguana
Just breaking on CNN.
On the other hand, there is the absolute certaintly that sooner or later (likely sooner) this privacy will be used to shield government's true motives. A policy may be announced with one stated purpose, but in truth there may be sinister alterior motives behind it, including graft, corruption and contempt for the will of the electorate. Actions may be taken for reasons that would infuriate voters, but rather than hearing the truth, all the public gets is a clever propaganda campaingn to sugarcoat and obscure the real powers at work.
An example would be President Hillary consulting with socialists on how to implement socialism and purposely deprive Americans of their independence. All this is hidden, and the public is given a shiny feel good diet of "It's for the children" instead.
How do we balance these two competing concerns?
An update to the AP story:
He (Scalia) and Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately Thursday to say U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan "clearly exceeded" his authority in ordering the administration to release records.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter said in a dissent that Sullivan should be allowed to consider what records should be released. They said it was not enough for the Bush administration to request blanket protection from having to make records public.
Yep. At least they have the Sierra Club labeled correctly as "Liberal" .....
Telling. And, sad.
I don't know about you, I have a tendency to dream about it...
This
This
And this. (And not necessarily in that order)
I just don't understand what is wrong with these haters.
A policy may be announced with one stated purpose, but in truth there may be sinister alterior motives behind it, including graft, corruption and contempt for the will of the electorate.
All of those things are already illegal, and no law forcing the opinions of private citizens to be made public will ever reveal that behavior.
No law is going to force President Hillary Clinton to release tapes of her secret meetings wherein she negotiates our surrender for a few billion from Communist Chinese Party leaders.
The Democrats are pushing this just because they want to have proof that Ken Lay was against regulation (duh!) so they can then allege that he pulled Bush’s strings on some legislation somewhere.
It’s a political pinata masquerading as some sort of freedom of information issue.
The bottom line is that private citizens should be able to offer advice to government officials in confidence. That’s the freedom position.
And when President Hillary implements socialistic policies, she needs to be held accountable, not her old college professors.
"On the other hand, there is the absolute certaintly that sooner or later (likely sooner) this privacy will be used to shield government's true motives."
Not exactly. As we've seen...especially as it relates to 9/11, there are times when the publics right to know will trump executive privacy...and thats what the courts are for.
The ghost of my English teaching mother demands that the word "alterior" be corrected to "ulterior".
Returning now to the regularly scheduled debate, carry on.
This was distinguished at the time. Hillary was not in an elected office of the executive branch. BIG difference.
"[Do] not suppose that... official communications will ever be seen or known out of the offices. Reserve as to all their proceedings is the fundamental maxim of the Executive department." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Hawkins, 1800. ME 10:160"It is essential for the public interest that I should receive all the information possible respecting either matters or persons connected with the public. To induce people to give this information, they must feel assured that when deposited with me it is secret and sacred. Honest men might justifiably withhold information, if they expected the communication would be made public, and commit them to war with their neighbors and friends. This imposes the duty on me of considering such information as mere suggestions for inquiry, and to put me on my guard; and to injure no man by forming any opinion until the suggestion be verified. Long experience in this school has by no means strengthened the disposition to believe too easily. On the contrary, it has begotten an incredulity which leaves no one's character in danger from any hasty conclusion." --Thomas Jefferson to John Smith, 1807. ME 11:203
The raw nerve of this blowhard "Jefferson" to imply we need executive privilege!
Why ? Should we allow the executive branch to spend all its time in court answering questions at the whim of every judge ?
Because Cheney actually holds an official office entitled to such protections where the Beast was a civillian usurping power.
I bet they are oh oh oh orgasm-ing over the new news of the day, that President Bush has indeed hired Lawyer Sharp for the investigation about Joe Wilson's CIA Wife being exposed in Novak's column, and that Bush has spoken to the Investigator this morning. I bet they are saying Bush personally gave Novak the leak. ROTFLMAO!!
It sure is. Especially with the controversy over Scalia. The White House would have won even if Scalia HAD recused himself.
Ok, you got me there. I concede this arguement to you.
It's really kinda fun over there. I'm up over 100 posts now at DU. You just have to be careful about how you frame your posts, mostly along the lines of getting them to make all kinds of wild claims of conspiracy. They're really a pretty gullible bunch.
Just the fact that Judicial Watch was involved was enough to see this coming... Now, had Judicial Watch sued Klayman's mother, they might have done a little better...
'Bout time the SC made a decision that followed law instaed of activism.
Ironically, Jefferson lost a separation of powers argument during the treason trial of Aaron Burr. He resisted releasing a letter that Burr claimed would exonerate him, saying it was inappropriate for the court to compel the president to do anything. After the court said he was not above the law, he "voluntarily" submitted the letter - to avoid setting a precedent.
It isn't. Hillary tried to radically change public policy by socializing healthcare. Since she was not elected, she had no mandate as per our Constitution.
In attempting to fix Clinton's nuzto energy policy, Vice President Cheny had the mandate and was doing his job.
One incident was unconstitutional, one is not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.