Posted on 01/01/2006 2:55:51 PM PST by SunSetSam
Which is one of my pet peeves with Bush as I've said many times. It looks like with the passage of the border fence, they are finally waking up to what we want our elected officials to do.
But when those ordinary Americans become federal employees, they are often shackled by clumsy rules and oppressive and often corrupt supervisors. For example, airport screeners who are told they can't give more attention to dark, swarthy middle-eastern men. Or the border patrol agent who is told he can't apprehend illegals after hours even though he sees them passing by in trucks.
I would profile anyone. Al queda is recruiting whites now. Dark middle eastern males would be on the top of my list. As far as the border comment, I believe I read where that is now changing in some areas. Give it time, it will spread to all areas of the country, if the aclu doesn't get it struck down.
Well, I can't disagree with anything you've said. I think there is disagreement among experts (which I am not) about the legality of what the President did. So, I think that is probably all we disagree about.
susie
Sam, you need to re-read Marbury v Madison yourself.
Marshall concludes with the observation that 'laws' repugnant to the Constitution are null & void from the moment they are written.
195 don asmussen
SunSetSam wrote:
Bush used powers assigned to him by Congress. The Supreme Court has not ruled the acts unconstitutional.
Therefore, under the current system of doing things (thanks to Marbury vs. Madison) he has acted properly.
That is the simple, dispassionate fact of the matter.
No Sam, you are very confused on Constitutional facts.
Our 'current system' has never authorized Congress to assign the President 'powers', nor is he empowered to ignore the Constitution when using the powers he does have.
Marbury is also not a factor, because USSC decisions can not empower Presidents to take unconstitutional actions.
Really, I'd suggest you study up a bit on Constitutional basics..
according to the opponents, it was good enough for Carter, it was good enough for Clinton, both dims. But it's not good enough for Bush, a republican. Partisan BS with capital letters. imo.
That's right. And we are paying for it now.
When did we have a right to carry loaded guns on an airplane?
I think it was sometime in the late sixties or early seventies that they were banned. I remember flying before they had searches or metal detectors.
"Until the early 1960s, American commercial passenger pilots on any flight carrying U.S. mail were required to carry handguns. The requirement started at the beginning of commercial aviation to insure that pilots could defend the mail if their plane were to ever crash.
In contrast to the current program, there were no training or screening requirements. Indeed, pilots were still allowed to carry guns until as recently as 1987. There are no records that any of these pilots (either military or commercial) carrying guns have ever caused any significant problems."
With psychos gunning down women and judges in courtrooms, I'd say it was a prudent measure.
But it seems to be happening more now. Especially in places where guns are banned and the perp doesn't have to worry about an armed citizen.
After 9-11 you want them flying over the WH? Planes can be hijacked. I agree with this as well.
You asked me about rights that we've lost. I gave you examples and now you are trying to justify it.
Not to appear to be a wise ass or anything, but...duh. Who wants an idiot yelling bomb on a plane.
No. Not yelling bomb. Saying the word bomb. Or having a book or magazine that has an illustration of a bomb on the cover. Or saying that a movie was a bomb. Examples of how we are becoming sheep. How we are being conditioned to acquiesce to the most insane rules. We are forced to watch women while they are fondled by moron screeners. These are all actual examples of how fascist we've become.
It's like army boot camp. Subjugation. The more idiotic the rules the more they are saying to us, "We can make you do whatever we want and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it".
Pardon my shocking statement with revelation, but did we have it before the war?
Rethink Randy Weaver and the debacle of Waco Texas....
You read machivellian (spel?) into everything. This country is free. The government isn't out to destroy us. They are out to destroy our enemies.
When did we have a right to carry loaded guns on an airplane?
Good question, brown.
I can't remember when congress 'enacted' [without the power to do so] a federal 'law' saying we couldn't.. -- I flew several times in the sixties with a pistol [unloaded] & ammo in my carry on bag, and never gave 'legality' a thought, as no one ever looked in your luggage..
Anyone remember? How bout you brown?
Not to appear to be a wise ass or anything, but...duh.
Who wants an idiot yelling bomb on a plane. You're not allowed to yell fire in a theater.
Making a joke [in normal conversation] about a bomb is hardly comparable to yelling fire.. But then even a wise ass should know that. Do you?
This is a good point. After 9/11, one of the embarrassing facts that came out about the CIA and the NSA was that they had tons of communications intercepted from terrorist sponsor nations but only a few Arabic speaking translators. In fact, as I recall, it was quite a while before the ever got up to speed.
However, you and I and the rest of us? The 300 million Americans? I'm sure there are plenty of loyal Americans who speak Arabic. Trouble is, they don't have the right to listen. Fewer rights == less security.
So. Since the Federal government doesn't have the authority to spy on Americans, we can choose to give them that right (and hope they've got around to hiring enough crew), or we could choose to give Americans that right. What would be more productive?
I don't fly in planes. Two phobias prevents it. Height and closed in spaces. When I was a teenager I flew once, you could smoke on a plane then and I smoked like a chimney.
Only an idiot would bring up the subject of a bomb on a plane where everyone is locked inside and can't get out. And one doesn't have to be a wise ass to figure that out. Common sense should prevail on that subject.
Thank you for reminding me of that, Susie Sunshine. I was starting to get depressed reading my own posts.
That depends a lot on the individual citizen or politician. When I worked for the federal government I used to speak against government spending, people thought I was crazy. Most politicians are motivated by getting re-elected. Term limits might help, but then that leaves an even more entrenched bureaucracy.
LOL
susie
They have to be tested in some way. The government has a word they used for the process but, I can't think of it now, too tired.
If I recall correctly, an FBI muslim agent refused to follow an order that involved his spying(for lack of a better word) on other muslims. Would you trust someone like him to translate documents correctly?
To exclude muslims from that positions the aclu would be screaming from the rafters.
Then why would Americans want to listen into conversations in arabic if they didn't understand the language? Too chaotic.
Exactly. Just to keep them honest, profile anyone, but give special scrutiny to the swarthy ones.
Someday someone will figure it out. Until then, we just muddle along.
It was good debating with you. I enjoyed it. I hope to do it again soon. See you around FR. Good night.
This is why ordinary citizens can be better at doing this than government employees. They are not constrained by politics or the constitutional limitations.
Thanks for the discussion, Good night.
Good night, Susie.
Later, Don. G'night.
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.