Posted on 01/03/2002 9:50:13 AM PST by 74dodgedart
Edited on 07/19/2004 2:09:20 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The law needs to be reviewed by the SCOTUS to determine constitutionality.
Be careful, Patrick.
Senator Inhofe might tell Bush to come down to Oklahoma and scream at your wife and kids, as you say he did.
Sharing intelligence matters with congresspeople who cannot be trusted to keep these secret (and who have PROVEN they cannot keep them secret) is just plain stupid.
This is a shot over Congress' bow. If they want written documentation, let them prove they can keep their mouths shut. Or let them limit the number of congresspeople who will see that documentation.
Thank you, I stand corrected. In a better world, Bush should have just vetoed the sucker. But we have also seen how Congress is playing obstructionist politics - would a standoff with Congress over the notification matter jeopardized ongoing anti-terrorism intel activities? And, part of the problem is that Congress stood by idly while Clinton ruled by EO, so they've helped to create this precedent - so now we have a system that is even more dysfunctional than ever, where both sides refuse to exercise their powers in a proper manner.
If Bush's intent were to challenge the Constitutionality of the requirement, then the honorable (and legal) thing to do, would be to state so, and then challenge the law in the Supreme Court.
But instead, he simply ignores the law he find inconvenient or contrary to his wishes, as is becoming common practice among most government officials.
And the truly sad thing, is that he does so to the cheers of millions of adoring fans.
Part of the problem is that SCOTUS seems to have lost their copy of the Constitution in recent years as well.
"Should" or "must"?
If it's "should," then Congress screwed up by not saying "must."
"Should" means Bush can do whatever he wants.
And if Dan Burton doesn't start jumping up and down about this, you'll know that the alarmists on this thread are just hyperventilating.
And how often have YOU recently agreed with SCOTUS rulings in relation to the Constitutionality of a given law? I'll repeat my question again, because you have refused to answer it, and I'll add SCOTUS into the equation: would you personally support the actions of a president who refused to enforce a law you considered blatantly unconstitutional, even if that law was passed by a previous Congress and signed by a previous president and upheld by SCOTUS? Please answer yes or no
sink, you can't accurately mix the text of the article with the quote from the bill.
Actually Mr. Libertarian (and God bless you for looking out for our "rights" btw) I was just joking but I do feel that it is simply impossible to roll back the damage of the past 60 years without benefit of perhaps strong measures beyond our current scope. I had thought for some time that a cataclysmic event might do the trick but as we are now learning...that simply isn't the case. The left is already back to true form.
Perhaps i should have said that Bush would make a fine president with exponentially increased executive branch powers over the legislative and judicial branches.
Actually we're doomed anyhow I suppose. That we've lasted 200 odd years and thru all sorts of serious nation destroying crap is a miracle enough. Now after all that we're just going to eventually implode of our own excesses and guilt.
I'm not aware of another exact paradigm in history, are you?
And so the president should just declare himself dictator, and pick and choose what laws he will abide by, and which he will disregard?
C'mon man.... is this really what you want?
Our Constitution and the rule of law are being systematically and intentionally destroyed.
I take no comfort in the fact that the destroyer happens to have an "R" on his team jersey this particular week.
What does that have to do with my question?
The fall of Rome is probably the closest.
No ... but I find it ironic that you, of all people, are demanding that we follow the dictates of organizations you have called disfunctional countless times over the years, in order to make a point about Bush. Once again, please answer the question I have posed to you.
Well, then, I guess we ought to find out what that adverb is, don't you think?
There's a legal difference between "should" and "must."
Look inside the quote - "always" - unless someone pulls up the entire relevant sentence or paragraph from the bill, for the time being I will defer to the "always" inside the quote and take it to mean just that.
Well it won't be the first time. I must confess that while I occasionally find common ground with Libertarians, the Caudillo in me will never allow the breach to close. Conservatives and Libertarians have vastly different ideas about limits on just about everything except the second amendment and maybe some criminal codes.
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.