Bill McGarrity wrote to Dreamer <=-
When I first read reports of the President calling the Constitution an outdated document, I thought for sure it was something twisted by some radical group. Same with quotes I read of him wanting to bypass congress...maybe those quotes were taken out of context. And so I went digging for videos, and was shocked by what I saw. The quotes weren't taken out of context, nor was it some passing quip or bad choice of
words. He really believes what he says; if he could make it happen, he would make, sign, and execute law from his office alone. We're not talking about executive orders -- those are administrative documents issued to departments within the executive branch which are limited in scope (can't change law).
To start, what part of that statement do you have issue with? If
I'm assuming you're referring to the President's statements.
Basically, any president is sworn to uphold the constitution. No
matter how much he dislikes being checked on his power, and no matter
how good his intentions are, he still has to work within the
boundaries of his office.
indeed the Constitution was written in stone, they why Amendments
11-27? This is the area where the "Founding Fathers" were genius. No
way could they have ever realized what changes would occur in 224 years since it was ratified. No way could they have realized the very medium we're discussing this on could have ever existed.
Article IV is one of those that come under great scrutiny.
Communications occur within milli-seconds. Do you feel the NSA is completely wrong in doing wha they're doing yet still feel comfortable
at night sleeping? Yes, I agree, some of the things are an over-reach, but the basis is relatively sound.
The Constitution isn't immutable, I agree. I don't have a problem
with the NSA keeping an eye on other governments...that's their job.
I don't have a problem with the FBI investigating people
domestically...that's their job. I do have a problem with these two
agencies being placed together with other DoD intelligence programs
under one cabinet level agency. The lines are becoming blurred on who
"the enemy" is.
If you don't think it can happen that rights can be ignored, just look
at Hoover's later years as head of the FBI.
Secondly, if the House would do it's job and legislate rather than pounding their chests then Executive Orders would not be necessary.
Trust me, the sitting Administration is not the first to use EO's not
will he be the last. The times do dicatate a certain amount of
flexability BUT within reason and need to be reviewed after their
specific job was acomplished.
There are many things that on the face of it sound like a good idea.
but our senators and representatives have excellent staff that look at
all sides of the issue. Many times flaws are found within the
legislation that would impact on rights, cost too much money, give too
much power to someone... you name it. It's their job to take the time
to look at these things, otherwise mistakes happen.
You're right, they're not the first and won't be the last. He could
pass an Order to create a new domestic national police force. Would
it happen? Of course not...it would never be appropriated any money.
He could pass an Order to appropriate the money to said program.
Would it happen? Of course not... the courts would immediately throw
it out as illegal. He can only administrate his branch of government
within the laws that have been passed. He can do a lot with that,
which is why they call his office the most powerful position in the
world.
I can't think of the specific cases at the moment, but there have been
times in the past an Order was issued that the legislative (or
judicial) did not like, and it was voided. It doesn't happen often,
though, as most are worded to remain legal and within his official
powers.
You want to stop all the BS that's happening now, repeal Citizen's
United. There in lies the evil you speak of. If, and only if that happens, then I'd agree with you on your above statements but do you actually think state legislatures do not fall within the same scope as their Federal counterparts? Corporate $ buys ALL. That's where your outrage should point towards.
I just read up a little on the case of Citizens United vs. Federal
Election Commission. Apparently it remains illegal for corporations
or unions to provide direct contributions. That case involved whether corporations could make independent expenditures and electioneering communications. Since, at its core, a corporation is an association
of people, it falls under free speech protections. I don't like it,
but I do respect the Court's decision on this one.
In this case, it is just speech. They're free to make it, and people
are free to listen or not, and to think for themselves. It sucks that
people don't take the time to think, but especially in politics more
speech is better, no matter who it comes from: it gives more
opportunity for more facts to come out.
As for campaign contributions, I haven't had a chance to look at that
yet. Really, general elections are going to be a bit beyond my
scope... I'm more concerned with State issues, and the election of
Senators relates to that.
The Federal government is not afraid of patriots, corporations are. They're the ones who will lose the most if sane minds start to realize Korporate Amerika wants to control it... YEOU included. I hear day
after day, over and over again... we want it like the old days...
well... how about we go back to the days of Eisenhower where the GOP
was sane.
Well, if the corporations are running things in government, and the corporations are afraid of people changing things, then by extension
so is government. I'm not concerning myself with corporations and
their money. I don't have the money to deal with that. I do have the
power of my speech, and the power of associations with other people.
There are a few other groups who've noticed all the different voices
popping up via Facebook, YouTube, and so on. They're forming new
associations, and I know of at least one guy who's *supposed* to be
forming a new website to deal with that. His focus is apparently on
the transportation laws and helping people get out of traffic
tickets... and apparently also on tax avoidance... lol... but he's
done his research, and had some actual successes. He works within the
law, and while I wouldn't try some of the things he's been doing, he
makes a lot of good points, and is doing good work.
His name is Eddie Craig, and the site he's supposed to be working on
is called Tao of Law. I watched a two hour lecture last night, and
the first half or so was on constitutional law. Not a whole lot that
I hadn't seen or read elsewhere, but it was fun watching him relate it
to his views on the transportation code. I personally think he's
facing a losing battle. The code grew from horse and buggy days, and
his entire argument is based on the fact that "transportation" is
concidered a commercial activity, and is no where defined in statute.
If he makes a loud enough ruckus, all the state legislature has to do
is add a clause to define transportation and defeat his entire
argument...lol!
In any case, the only reason I bring him up is I think you'd enjoy
watching his lecture on YouTube. Only a handful of people would be
crazy enough to try to go full on with his teachings, but bits and
peaces are definitely applicable to everyday life, such as your rights
in regards to peace officers.
Excerpts of the 1956 GOP platform...
On Labor and Wages: The platform boasted that “the Federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers. Social Security has
been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits
raised for 6 1/2 million. The protection of unemployment insurance has been brought to 4 million additional workers. There have been increased workmen’s compensation benefits for longshoremen and harbor workers, increased retirement benefits for railroad employees, and wage
increases and improved welfare and pension plans for federal
employees.” It called for changes to the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act to “more effectively protect the rights of labor unions” and to “assure
equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.”
On Welfare and Health: The platform demanded “once again, despite the reluctance of the Democrat 84th Congress, Federal assistance to help
build facilities to train more physicians and scientists.” It
emphasized the need to continue the “extension and perfection of a
sound social security system,” and boasted of the party’s recent
history of supporting “enlarged Federal assistance for construction of hospitals, emphasizing low-cost care of chronic diseases and the
special problems of older persons, and increased Federal aid for
medical care of the needy.”
On Civil Rights, Gender Equality, and Immigration: The platform
supported “ self-government, national suffrage and representation in
the Congress of the United States for residents of the District of Columbia.” With regards to ending discrimination against racial minorities, the party took pride that “more progress has been made in
this field under the present Republican Administration than in any
similar period in the last 80 years.” It also recommended to Congress
“the submission of a constitutional amendment providing equal rights
for men and women.” Its section on immigration actually recommended expanding immigration to America, supporting ”the extension of the
Refugee Relief Act of 1953 in resolving this difficult refugee problem which resulted from world conflict.”
And to top it all off....
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are…a few…Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional
politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid,” wrote Republican President Dwight Eisenhower to
his brother in 1954. Unfortunately, this splinter group is now in
charge of this once-respectable political party.
======================
I'm not saying the Dems are much better but do you not agree their platform more resembles the one I showed above? They say learn from history, the 50's were America's greatest decade of growth and
prosperity other than the 90's. Corporate tax was well over 70% and
yet, employment was booming. If and only if the GOP returns to those
days will I have a discussion. Right now, as Eisenhower so eloquently stated, they're stupid... but their number is not negligible anymore.
Oh yeah, I've been pointing that out to friends for years. When I was
younger and stupider, I counted myself as a Democrat (I believe my
family has usually voted Democrat), until one election cycle I sat
down and read through everything, then looked at history (thanks
Internet). I immediately became a Republican.
Nowadays, if I'm going to claim any party, it's Libertarian...but I
guess you could say I'm more of an independent voter.
Bill
Telnet: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
IRC: irc.tequilamockingbirdonline.net Ports: 6661-6670 SSL: +6697
Radio: radio.tequilamockingbirdonline.net:8010/live
... Look TWICE.... Save a life. Motorcycles are EVERYWHERE!!
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
ž Synchronet ž TequilaMockingbird Online - TELNET: tequilamockingbirdonline.net
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
ž Synchronet ž Sovereign State BBS