1 posted on
04/06/2007 4:49:56 AM PDT by
Brilliant
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
To: Brilliant
Oh yes. I expect the Bush administration to arrest Pelosi (eyes rolling).
2 posted on
04/06/2007 4:52:21 AM PDT by
Seruzawa
(Attila the Hun... wasn't he a liberal?)
To: Brilliant
This law will of course be enforced with great fervor:)
Excellent piece..thanks for posting.
3 posted on
04/06/2007 4:54:28 AM PDT by
SE Mom
(Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
To: Brilliant
Jim “Ft. Worthless” Wright (D-TX) should have been arrested by Pres. Reagan for traipsing to Nicaragua to boost Little Danny Ortega’s insurgency back in the ‘80s, and that would have given pause to current Dems who undercut the powers of the Executive Branch. But no, the Logan Act is just one of those leftover laws that won’t be enforced...unless some Republican goes abroad and opens his mouth during Hillary’s administration. To the gallows with him then.
To: Brilliant
Alright. Does anyone other than the Administration, then, have standing to bring suit against Madam Speaker and any others involved?
To: Brilliant
No - this is wonderful. The demonrats are complaining about Bush breaking a law with his “volunteer” recess appointment. If they press that issue, he should immediately say “fine - here’s the law YOU broke. Wanna fight?”
The only way Bush is going to get any respect is if he grows a new pair of balls (the old pair seems to have fallen off).
Oh, and, while we are at it, let’s have Jimmy Carter arrested.
8 posted on
04/06/2007 5:06:28 AM PDT by
bolobaby
To: Brilliant
Yes I can see them prosecuting her, not, they let Sandy Burger go.
But this is a great palce to draw the line and prosecute her.
13 posted on
04/06/2007 5:40:48 AM PDT by
stockpirate
(You want real conservatives to show up at the polls this time, run real conservatives!)
To: Brilliant
Gee. Do you suppose Nancy will be indicted? Sent up the river? Impeached????
BTW, I know this is changing the subject, but is purjury against the law???
16 posted on
04/06/2007 6:04:09 AM PDT by
Savage Beast
(Beware! Pelosi is the self-appointed President of a shadow government in the U.S. Be afraid!)
To: Brilliant
There is no respect for the Constitution anymore. It is just a piece of paper written by a bunch of dead people, we have evolved past it relevancy. I doubt that the majority of our elected officials have ever even read the Constitution. We are now governed by polls, special interest groups and globalism. Those who serve in goverment are an elite protected class of people, similar the the aristocrats in England. Our President refuses to protect our sovereignty, even though, he takes an oath to do so. It’s disgusting!! I can’t even put into words the anger and sadness I feel for what my children will have to endure.
17 posted on
04/06/2007 6:07:56 AM PDT by
panthermom
(DUNCAN HUNTER 2008)
To: Brilliant
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070406/cm_usatoday/pelosistepsoutofbounds
Opinion
Pelosi steps out of bounds 2 hours, 15 minutes ago
Democrats in Congress have been busy flexing their foreign policy muscles almost from the moment they took power in January, for the most part responsibly. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) crossed a line this week by visiting Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad. She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad - even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home.
Like it or not (and we do not), President Bush’s policy has been to refuse to negotiate with Syria until it changes its behavior. That behavior is malignant. Syria has long meddled destructively in neighboring Lebanon and is widely seen as the bloody hand behind the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Syria has aligned itself with Iran and supports the violently anti- Israel groups Hezbollah and Hamas. It foments violence in Iraq by allowing suicide bombers and jihadists to cross the Syria-Iraq border.
Pelosi surely knew that as speaker - third in the succession line to the presidency - her high-profile presence in Damascus would be read as a contradiction of Bush’s no-talkpolicy. No matter that she claimed to have stuck closely to administration positions in her conversations with Assad, smiling photos of Pelosi and the Syrian president convey the unspoken message that while the U.S. president is unwilling to talk with Syria, another wing of the government is. Assad made good use of the moment.
-snip-
19 posted on
04/06/2007 6:14:35 AM PDT by
RDTF
(They should have put down Barbarella instead of Barbaro)
To: Sidebar Moderator
shouldn’t this be on the sidebar? Thanks
21 posted on
04/06/2007 6:22:20 AM PDT by
RDTF
(They should have put down Barbarella instead of Barbaro)
To: Brilliant
Pelosi violated The Logan Act and MUST be charged.
QUOTE Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. UNQUOTE
The Constitution is clear. The Constitution MUST be enforced. Pelosi MUST be charged because she violated the Logan Act.
Pelosi's unauthorized trip to Syria explicitly against the request of the President to not go, to negotiate foreign policy for the United States is in direct violation to the Logan Act.
Enforce the Constitution now.
23 posted on
04/06/2007 6:33:53 AM PDT by
pyx
(Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE, IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)
To: Brilliant
It also represents a stunning naivete on her part. I pray for the health of President Bush and VP Cheney.
25 posted on
04/06/2007 6:55:53 AM PDT by
NonValueAdded
(Prevent Glo-Ball Warming ... turn out the sun when not in use)
To: Brilliant
The most hollow Presidency since Ike.
Why did he run if he doesn’t want to use his authority?
To: Brilliant
29 posted on
04/06/2007 7:48:24 AM PDT by
jackv
(just shakin' my head)
To: Brilliant
IT seems to me that this has now become another of those vital questions to be asked, again and again, of every presidential candidate.
Something like, “In light of recent and repeated contacts by unauthorized indviduals with hostile governments, usurping the Constitutional power of the President and in clear violation of the Logan Act, will you now promise to enforce the sole authority of the President to conduct foreign policy?”
To: Brilliant
This article has been made available at the WSJ's free OpinionJournal site here:
Illigal Deplomacy
To: Brilliant
38 posted on
04/06/2007 11:12:23 AM PDT by
finnman69
(cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
To: Brilliant
SEA ISLAND, Georgia (CNN) -- President Bush said Thursday he never authorized the use of any interrogation techniques in the war on terrorism that would violate U.S. or international laws.
"The authorization I issued was that anything we did would conform to U.S. law and would be consistent with international treaty obligations," Bush told reporters at the G8 Summit.
***
the Truman Administration argued its position in the Federal courts and asked the Supreme Court to rule that he had the "inherent authority" under the Constitution to seize the steel factories despite the fact that the Congress did not want him to do so and thus refused to give him this power.
The Supreme Court said that even though the President may have a claim to some "inherent authority" to seize these factories, once Congress has enacted laws making clear that he cannot do so, the President under our system of Government does not have the right to act outside of the law by violating Congress intent. In so ruling, the Court said that the where Congress has the power to legislate in a certain area (as it plainly does with regard to regulating eavesdropping on American citizens), the President is no more permitted to violate that law than anyone else is, even if he claims that doing so is necessary for him to carry out his Executive duties to protect the nation. It really does not get any clearer or more dispositive than this.
***
State of the Union Address, January 2002
THE PRESIDENT:
"But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the power of the state"
Pretty clear. If the President is not exempt from the law, neither is the Speaker of the House.
39 posted on
04/06/2007 11:50:15 AM PDT by
TLI
(ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA, MMP AZ 2005, TxMMP El Paso Oct+April 2006 TxMMP Laredo - El Paso)
To: Brilliant
"I have no interest in investigating Speaker Pelosi committed a Felony or Treason. I am more interested in whether Scooter Libby told Tim Russert he had a bagel for breakfast, when I know darn well he had a bran muffin."
40 posted on
04/06/2007 1:39:07 PM PDT by
SkyPilot
To: Brilliant
41 posted on
04/07/2007 9:06:02 PM PDT by
John Galt's cousin
("Innocent until proven guilty" is more correctly phrased: "Innocent UNLESS proven guilty.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson