check the constitution again
also, the dept of tres is under the exec branch
the real problem is finding someone that understands the economy and that person may not exist
heavy sigh
fucktard barney frank
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
check the constitution again
also, the dept of tres is under the exec branch
the real problem is finding someone that understands the economy and that person may not exist
heavy sigh
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
BS, you are just repeating the myth that Presidents are responsible for tlhe economy's performance. The truth is Presidents are at the mercy of the business cycle. There are tools to influence the business cycle, but the President has almost no control over them. In economic terms, the most powerful person in the US is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board who IS responsible for the monetary policy, not the President. Presidents are in charge of the fiscal policy.
Presidents probably have the least control over the economy of any major player. The belief that presidents deserve blame for recessions or credit for recoveries is an economic myth. It's a very popular myth, but one that no reputable economist takes seriously.
It's obvious, YOU are the one who lives in fairytale land, but for a 12 year old, one can't expect much more.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
check the constitution again
also, the dept of tres is under the exec branch
the real problem is finding someone that understands the economy and that person may not exist
heavy sigh
Statists are abusing the responsibility of money creation, using it to create an elite class of humanity, thus bifurcating the population.
it seems like nobody understands it because those in charge won't be honest about it, and most of the idiots below them are too brainwashed to believe it's true, and instead attack anyone who tells the truth, for fear of it.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
hey dq, tell us again about how jews commiting genocide against the palestinians is just evolution. your new agey zionism should be considered a thought crime.
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
You had your chance, so when will you left-wing nuts ever learn? There's more.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
FISA Court and Holder rule in favor of Bush; slam Bathtub Boy
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review — a special federal appeals court created by the 1978 FISA statute on matters of national security surveillance -- last week ruled that the President has unfettered constitutional authority to monitor international communications without court permission. In fact, the President can do so even when the communications of U.S. citizens are involved.
It understates the case to say the Bush administration has been slandered for asserting this power — accused of shredding the Constitution and violating the principle that no one is above the law (even as Congress put itself above the law — the Constitution — by enacting and trying to enforce a statute, FISA, that sought to diminish the president's constitutional authority). It was never true.President Bush's Terrorist Surveillance Program — carried out by the NSA without court oversight, just as wartime presidents have always conducted national security surveillance without court oversight — always stood on strong authority, including a 2002 ruling from the same Foreign Intelligence Court of Review. have argued in favor of the program's legality, here on NRO and elsewhere, more times than I can count. (See, e.g., here, here, here, here and here).
But during last week's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Holder was as slippery as a FALN bomb-maker's can of machine oil.
Mr. Hatch: "Back to my prior point, the President's inherent authority under the Constitution. Can that be limited by a statute? You're relying on a statute as though that's binding on Article II of the Constitution."
Mr. Holder: "Well, the President obviously has powers under the Constitution that cannot be infringed by the legislative branch. That's what I was saying earlier. There are powers that the President has delegated to him -- that he has -- and Congress does not have the ability to say, with regard to those powers, you cannot exercise them. There's always a tension in trying to decide where that balance is struck. And I think we see the best result when we see Congress interacting with the President, the executive branch interacting with the legislative branch and coming up with solutions . . ."
Mr. Hatch: "That still doesn't negate the fact that the President may have inherent powers under Article II that even a statute cannot vary."
Holder: "Yeah. There are certain things that a President has the constitutional right, authority to do, that the legislative branch cannot impinge upon."
Put simply, even Holder now admits that Presidents have constitutional powers that the legislature may not abridge.
Mr. Holder: "Well, the President obviously has powers under the Constitution that cannot be infringed by the legislative branch. That's what I was saying earlier. There are powers that the President has delegated to him -- that he has -- and Congress does not have the ability to say, with regard to those powers, you cannot exercise them. There's always a tension in trying to decide where that balance is struck. And I think we see the best result when we see Congress interacting with the President, the executive branch interacting with the legislative branch and coming up with solutions . . ."Mr. Hatch: "That still doesn't negate the fact that the President may have inherent powers under Article II that even a statute cannot vary."
Holder: "Yeah. There are certain things that a President has the constitutional right, authority to do, that the legislative branch cannot impinge upon."
So much for the shrill meme endlessly marketed by Democrats and echoed by their public relations arm, the mainstream media. To wit:
Bush is not above the law: New York Times Op-Ed (James Bamford):
...the president of the United States broke the law, committed a serious felony and violated the Constitution... Under his program, President Bush could probably be charged with wiretapping not 17 but thousands of people without having obtained a court order authorizing the taps as required by federal law, in violation of FISA...
In a hearing on Jan. 18 [2007], the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said, “For years, this administration has engaged in warrantless wiretapping of Americans contrary to the law... ”
His view was shared by the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, who said of Mr. Bush, “For five years he has been operating an illegal program.”
Or Bill Maher:In a hearing on Jan. 18 [2007], the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said, “For years, this administration has engaged in warrantless wiretapping of Americans contrary to the law... ”
His view was shared by the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, who said of Mr. Bush, “For five years he has been operating an illegal program.”
New Rule: Liberals must stop saying President Bush hasn’t asked Americans to sacrifice for the war on terror. On the contrary, he’s asked us to sacrifice something enormous: our civil rights... ...this administration has read your phone records, credit card statements, mail, Internet logs.. I mail myself a copy of the Constitution every morning just on the hope they’ll open it and see what it says.
Or Keith Olbermann, a man so unhinged even the left mocks him:
Olbermann's Special Comment on FISA: President Bush Is a Liar and a Fascist: If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business — come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend. You’re a fascist — get them to print you a t-shirt with “fascist” on it! What else is this but fascism? ...And if there’s one thing we know about Big Brother, Mr. Bush, is that he is — you are — a liar...
...You are a liar, Mr. Bush, and after showing some skill at it, you have ceased to even be a very good liar... You would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists… You would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people… You would not merely be guilty of stupidity… You would not merely be guilty of treason, sir… You would be personally, and eternally, responsible.
Or Elaine Cassel, author of The War on Civil Liberties (How Bush and Ashcroft Have Dismantled the Bill of Rights).
...You are a liar, Mr. Bush, and after showing some skill at it, you have ceased to even be a very good liar... You would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists… You would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people… You would not merely be guilty of stupidity… You would not merely be guilty of treason, sir… You would be personally, and eternally, responsible.
I felt compelled to share the story of how... the government was using the war on terrorism to circumvent precious liberties and rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights... [we can not] sit by and watch our freedoms dissolve under the guise of fighting terrorism.
Or miscellaneous socialists like Doreen Miller (don't all Marxists look alike?):
The [Patriot Act] eviscerates many of the protections of the Bill of Rights by allowing the Government to search people’s homes without a warrant, to monitor electronic communication without a warrant, to imprison citizens for 6 months without seeing a judge, and much more.
Or the brilliant diarists at Daily Kos:
I pray that George W. Bush burns in Hell!: I sit here and am depressed what we have become and the destroyed lives all because this pathetic man chose to defy our constitution... our people and our sense of moral decency. This horrible man will burn in hell. That would only be fair.
Now that Chimpy has been forever vindicated by the FISA review court -- and the presumptive Democratic Attorney General -- we'll patiently await apologies from the spectrum of unhappy Leftists and terror-supporters who range from the merely ignorantly to the patently deranged.
Got that, Bathtub Boy?
Click here
Last edited:
telling the truth is a capital crime in any 'mature' government
when did i become a zionist? i am not even jewish
besides genocide does not work
people escape from the group being persecuted and you end up with more than you started with
of course those killed along the way have a right to complain...and their survivors...if any
genocide sucks
tell me what percent or number of a given population has to be killed off for it to be called genocide
you mean bush / cheney are not all of those things...
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
No, they tap communications with suspected enemies of the US. If you happen to be on the line with one, that puts you as suspect as well. *shrug*
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
See my post on this thread about wiretapping. These guys are liars.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
And you pwn them.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
I don't know.
many zionists are non jews. Many are brainwashed guilty white noahide killbots.
many people still try
Then they keep trying
What 's the difference?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
see, this is something i've got issue with. that whole 'guilt by association' thing just doesn't work for me, especially since it violates the principles of 'guilty until proven innocent'.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Why else would you be talking on the phone with an enemy of the state? Also, collecting evidence does not assume guilt or innocence. *shrug*
SmarterthanYou
rebel
wrong number? innocent relationship? patsy? any number of reasons why I might end up talking to any of the individual people not of this country. That doesn't give carte blanche authority for the executive to wiretap my phone calls, despite the illegalities of a FISA court ruling. 4th Amendment anyone?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
If you are innocent or a patsy collection of evidence would exonerate you and may save your life. *shrug*
SmarterthanYou
rebel
to depend on the government to keep me safe and alive is to accept victimhood and subservience. I think we can agree that that is not me.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
If you are innocent you should be grateful the government is tapping your call....then they will have the evidence of your innocence on tape......and there is no "care blanche" authority for wiretapping your calls....there is the limited authority for wiretapping international calls to suspected terrorists.....if you call Pizza Hut and order supper, they aren't going to be listening......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
hey, you're the one who suggested you were calling enemies of the state out of ignorance....sounds like you need protection to me.....
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Nor is it "me" to accept a straw man argument, even from you. *shrug*