As a Brit, I always think its hilarious to hear the phrase ‘left wing’ associated with the Democratic Party…
cute… but that’s not what I’ve said either…
-Imp
Well if the republicans are busy trying to do less damage, I’d hate to see what it would look like if they didn’t give a damn about how much damage they have caused.
Imp, you argue from an ideological basis and do not know what you are talking about. The presidency of George W. Bush has been filled with clear and/or near violations of the Constitution. Check Charlie Savage’s book Takeover, amongst others. The Bush Administration is constitutionally abominable. It was also the dream administration of so many Republicans. You guys have spent seventy years bitching and moaning about how we liberals have destroyed America. It is now 2008. Republicans have had near complete control of the Republic since 2000. Eight years. And what have you done? Sent the country to war in Iraq, hackishly. Nearly destroyed one of the oldest American cities. Wrecked the economy through shortsighted economic planning (which is braided up in the Iraq war). Systematically fucked all the checks and balances provisions of the Constitution. Said that it is okay to drown people just so long as it’s okay we get something approximating a confession (remarkably like the Inquisition.) Completely cozied up to the Saudi Regime, a Wahhabist regime that funds regressive fundamentalist Islamic schools throughout the Middle East. (G.Dub fucking holds hand with Prince Bandar for God’s sake!) I won’t even bring in the US attorney’s scandal, because I know that Bill Clinton fired ALL of his US attorneys upon taking office (Yet at the same time, it seems to me to be somewhat different to fire every one at the beginning of a job versus five years into one.) I could go on and on. You are defending one of the WORST presidents in US history. The likelihood that he will be exonerated by history is pretty damn slim. He isn’t Truman. The reason for this is that he has been the front man for so many… fuck-ups… that his “either-way” decisions like Iraq (which I will grant might go either way) will not save him. Your entire worldview, Imp, is broken. You are defending a white protestant world view from the late twenties and calling it libertarianism, when in fact you are actually merely a fascist.
I would be happy to accept the fact that you don’t wholly defend Bush, that you aren’t a republican hack, that you are a mighty patriotic defender of the Republic, but you use Al-Jazeera ( of all the weak sources) to attack the would-be candidate for the Democratic Party. Imp, you’re not a patriot. You’re a fascist.
thank you… I never claimed to be a patriot and that’s the second time you have had to resort to name calling…
-Imp
Off the top of my head I can think of several cases involving the Bush Administration
NSA wiretapping was ruled unconstitutional after the details were leaked.
His signing statements considered unconstitutional
The Valerie Plame scandal
His order to “overrule” a federal judge regarding the use of sonar within 12 miles of of the shore
Not to mention that anyone in the field or remotely aware of current events knows that the Executive Power has been greatly widened during Bush’s Presidency. That would seem to be the very definition of a move toward tyranny.
none of which have been proven unconstitutional… bring the impeachment charges…
tyranny? LMAO…
-Imp
NSA wiretaps were ruled unconstitutional
The sonar “executive order” was ruled unconstitutional
What do you think it means for something to be “proven unconstitutional”…
Furthermore, people in the administration were convicted of crimes in the Valerie Plame case, and the “signing statement” case is widely considered to be unconstitutional.
“considered to be unconstitutional” is not proven/ruled unconstitutional in a court of law/letters of impeachment.
-Imp
By federal courts
I realize that, hence i separated the cases that had been ruled unconstitutional from the case that is widely considered unconstitutional. I’m not sure what this impeachment business has to do with though, that’s a matter of congress, not the judiciary.
which specific federal court? there are lots of complaints and actions, but no court has ruled that bush did anything unconstitutional.
-Imp
I don’t see how what district the court is in matters but here:
NSA wiretapping ruled unconstitutional: Michigan federal district court
computerworld.com/action/art … Id=9002522
Bush attempts to overrule a court decision through executive decision, he is struck down: California federal district court
articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/23 … me-sonar23
blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/envi … 129614.asp
smh.com.au/news/whale-watch/ … 19861.html
news.nationalgeographic.com/news … sonar.html
No, the case was overruled on technical grounds by a court of appeals, the plaintiffs couldn’t sue because they couldn’t prove they had been wiretapped. A bit of a catch-22 if you ask me. One’s only recourse to stop the illegal wiretaps is to sue, but one can never prove if one is being wiretapped. Anyway, the judges opinion included the idea that had the case not been dismissed on technical grounds, it would have put a stop to the wiretapping, thus setting the precedence that the NSA wiretaps are illegal. Now all we need to wait for is someone to leak the details of the wiretaps so someone can prove that they have been wiretapped.
I don’t know what you mean, the articles say that a federal court ruled that bushes signing statement was unconstitutional/unlawful. That’s the only thing one need take from them.
that’s what the article said, not what the court ruled.
-Imp
I’m not sure how you can conclude that considering the dicta of the judges say that the wiretaps are unlawful, but that that particular case was wrongheaded. Perhaps you don’t understand how courts work?
I suppose it really doesn’t matter though, there are plenty of cases that one could reference.
Weather it be the Federal court ruling that Bush’s attempt to enforce a ban on Partial-Birth Abortion was unconstitutional, or the rulings that faith based initiatives are unconstitutional. The cases are there, the unconstitutional acts of Bush have been “proven”, one need only spend a few minutes to search. Helll, I even provided the issues for you… Anyway, I haven’t the slightest interest in providing the links to the rulings anymore, you can look them up yourself or remain ignorant. Nor do I buy the ludicrous idea that a presidents actions are constitutional and lawful as long as they haven’t been overruled by a court, nor do I buy that any such action is fine as long as it has been overruled by a court. As I said earlier, it is blatantly obvious to anyone who cares to look that Bush has greatly expanded the power of the executive, sometimes lawfully, and sometimes unlawfully. I don’t like either, and if your arguments were remotely consistent this wouldn’t be happening.
and if you had one scintilla of evidence, you might have an argument… but all you have is name calling and falsely accusing bush of unconstitutional crimes that he did not commit.
-Imp
So you choose to remain ignorant on the subject. Kudos for you.
-edit-
Just to prove my point, I offer one more case. One that doesn’t require you to know anything about the court system, nor allows you to say irrelevancies like “which court”. A U.S. supreme court case declaring Bush’s practices unconstitutional.
Rasul V. Bush
Don’t be confused though, this is not me continuing the discussion, this is me concluding my involvement in this circus act.
and show us where in the court decision that it says bush acted unconstitutionally…
(mere argument about the interpretation of a treaty is not unconstitutional…)
law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-334.ZO.html
-Imp
Bush suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus for people in Guantanamo Bay, the Supreme Court overruled it. The argument that the treaty exempted Guantanamo Bay detainees from Habeas Corpus was Bushes claim. It turned out that it did not, hence he acted unconstitutionally when he didn’t allow them habeas corpus.
Then Bush suspended Habeas Corpus of U.S. citizens and the Supreme Court overruled it. (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 8-1 mind you) The court ruled all U.S. citizens are due habeas corpus, thus showing Bush acted unconstitutionally.
Habeas Corpus is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Bush denied it to people that have it as a right…you do the math.