Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

Thomas Jefferson

The Bush administration cannot claim exectutive privilege, because to date, no authority to claim executive privilege beyond the need for national security or intnernational relations has been delegated to the President.

Precedent defines the role of executive privilege, which was defined in the 1974 Watergate SCOTUS ruling on the clause. Bush does not have the authority therefore, and therefore will be forced to drop the claim and play ball.

If you’re not gonna suit up then get the hell off the field.

Instead we need more whiney wormy so called allies to crawl in on their belly’s pleading for people to not debate the right wing bloggers on the actual topic of the thread.

God knows no one wants that.

Heckuvajob.

With friends like you…

Long after I closed this debate at post number 600, hand this troll his ass on a stroller, in comes a so called “ally” to encourage me to not debate any more trolls.

:|

I didn’t realize cleaning the clocks of the RNC trolls was so damaging to our cause.

Comment by firewire121615 — July 15, 2007 @ 1:43 am

How?

Like I just did. Thats how.

Please – there is no need to get confrontational about it. For the past 7 years I have rigorously debated the many issues stemming from this administration in numerous academic forums. I am on your side and in total agreement with everything you said. Furthermore, being of academic background, I have always preferred that issues get decided through healthy, strong debate. Clinton surrounded himself with high academic achievers and listened intently to and acted on what those people had to say. This current administration is far different. They do not appreciate nor do they understand any type of logic or reasoning. Strongly situated persusive arguments have little merit in their eyes. Nothing – absolutely nothing – diverts their attention from that which they have declared to be true. It is mind-boggling, but it’s true – and very, very sick.

How could any of us – myself included – expect anything different out of this crowd? Let’s just look at a couple of instances firmly established in Bush’s history. Bush wasn’t elected on the first go-around (and the concealed fake-felon issue made that election both horrifying and laughable at the same time) yet he came away acting as though he had a mandate. During the second go-around Bush & Co. apparently felt that the only way he could get re-elected was to falsely paralyze the citizens of this country with the worst kind of fear imaginable. If asked right now Bush would simply claim that winning the second election through the use of false representations was a perfectly justifiable act since he was only acting on God’s Will and God willed him to undermine the truth. This argument can be made for most all of his ill-founded twilight-zone claims. Instilling fear into people in order to gain votes to ensure personal gain is nothing other than sick, sick, sick.

Those unfortunate individuals who are part of this administration have chosen to keep their tiny little minds in tiny little boxes to the point that they are unmoved by reality. To date, Bush remains unremorseful about all the harm and devastation spawning directly from actions undertaken under his watch. This is the mark of a sociopath. Sociopaths just don’t give a sh– about anything they do or anything they do that causes harm. He and his Pals won’t listen to reason – in fact, REFUSE to listen to reason. Moreover, the more Bush is questioned, it seems the more firmly he becomes entrenched in his own private, unreasonable sicko tiny-box world.

How do you debate issues with a person who lives by irrational, unfounded, ungrounded rules? How do you debate someone who believes that we are all wrong and that he is right? How do you debate someone who believes senseless, obvious falsehoods to be true? How do you debate someone who listens to the little voices in his head? How do you debate someone who believes in either of two extremes but in nothing else; i.e., dead or alive and/or black or white? How do you debate someone who claims to be an elected official but ignores the people he claims elected him? In the case of Cheney – how do you debate someone who claims executive privilege to avoid production of anything and everything but never engaged in those activities necessary to claim that privilege? It’s true that something can’t both be and not be and the same time – but this administration is trying its hardest to defy this physical reality! Like it or not – debating Bush or, taken collectively, his administration – would be akin to debating air (although I haven’t tried to debate air – I just don’t think it would be a good use of my time).

In closing I just want to reiterate that I am in full agreement with you and I applaud your efforts. Only recently I, too, was heavily involved in many similar debates. I truly wish that the many wrongs could be changed for the better by virtue of mututal decisions arrived at through serious debate. I don’t see that happening as long as you have a few of these squirrely, tiny minds floating around. Those tiny little minds just refuse to listen and/or budge. I see them as dangerous people who consistently exhibit irrational behavior. You cannot reason with these individuals. Taken collectively, all the wise men in the world would fail when trying to persuade those installed in power to part ways from their own private truths.

I make these arguments from my own personal experiences. These arguments provide the foundation for my claim that collective action is the only way to affect change within such an administration – a sociopathic administration, if you will.

Comment by firewire121615 — July 14, 2007 @ 3:34 pm

You know thanks for that. I only spent 2 days and 600 comments proving to a moron that Bush doesn’t have a legal case to stand on in invocing executive privilege.

In fact, our debate was based on exactly the issues that will be debated in depth within the congress and the courts over the coming months.

Our debate was timely, informational and right on topic.

What makes no sense is to come in lazily after a 2 day comprehensive debate on the issue, and try and shoot down other peoples hard work.

THAT makes no sense at all.

If anything – it is even MORE important that Bush and Pals be forced to follow the rule of law since they are the ones supposedly at the top and capable of capturing the public’s attention through the use of the media. I am sure most would agree that – since Bush illegally installed himself in office – there has been a distinct downturn in the morals and ethics displayed by citizens of this country – both collectively and individually.

In that regard, immediate steps should be taken to impeach both Bush and Cheney. Once impeached, both should be charged with and tried for myriad crimes. Amongst those charges would be the now run-of-the-mill obstruction, racketeering, perjury, corruption, prolific human rights violations, theft of billions of dollars of tax-payer money to promote a so-called war based upon false representations and concealment, and – last but certainly not least – WAR CRIMES.

What Goes Around Comes Around? Or could it justifiably be called A SYSTEM Of NATURAL JUSTICE? I believe that Bush and Pals will eventually be rightly rewarded no matter what we do or don’t do. Given the significance of what the Bushites have done, I also believe that it is our absolute duty – as human beings and citizens of this country – to help them attain their JUST REWARDS as expeditiously as possible. In other words, we need the masses to ORGANIZE, RISE UP and SPEAK.

These DANGEROUS people are deciding the future for ourselves, our children, and our children’s children. Collective, URGENT MEANS are necessary in order to affectively undermine and obstruct the alternative MEANS Dangerous People Use To GET WHAT THEY WANT. Sitting around and academically discussing these issues will not work with these irrational, immoral, lacking-in-scruples lunatics who forced their way into office. No matter what we say – when we SIT we are only SUCKING IT UP. With these people, the only way to fight their actions is through ACTIONS of our own.

FOUR WHITE PILLARS

Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

Thomas Jefferson

:D

Comment by metonic — July 13, 2007 @ 6:59 pm

You must be a friend of Pauls.

This case is not about removing “Federal Judges” from the bench.

The case is about Federal “Prosecutors”, US Attorneys.

Not Judges.

Prosecutors.

Which are a critical component of the Justice Dept.

George W Bush, does not have the authority to invoke executive privilege, because to date, no invocation of executive privilege that does not involve military or national security issues, or international relations, has been upheld by any court, anywhere, at anytime.

Executive privilege has only been successfully invoked for national security related issues and international relations.

Washington was the first, invoking the privilege to argue against providing documentation with regards to the Jay Treaty, which encompassed international relations. Washington argued that the only the Senate has a role in ratifying treaties, and essentially won, providing the documents only to the Senate, and not the lower house.

Jefferson next invoked it for the Aaron Burr trial, arguing public safety. The court overruled that argument, and Jefferson was compelled to turn over his notes and letters regarding Burr.

Dwight Eisenhower next invoked it, to refuse to hand over notes from meetings with the Army, which falls under the guise of National Security.

Nixon next invoked it, trying to conceal records and audio tapes from the Watergate special prosecutor. The court, while acknowledging the need for such a clause, was unwilling to move beyond the precedent already set by previous uses of the law, and cited that there was no allowance for “general confidentiality” nor was there any ties to the acid test of national security, or international relations, and Nixons claim was struck down, and the tapes were played (mysteriously missing 18 minutes)

Next it was invoked by Clinton, who invoked it to try to keep his aides from testifying in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The court struck down Clintons claim, citing the earlier 1974 ruling and its defining parameters, and Clintons aides were ordered to testify. Later, Clinton tried to invoke it again with regards to his OWN testimony, and ended up keeping it out of court, striking a deal with Ken Starr outlining the circumstances under which he would testify.

In other words, precedent has been absolutely consistent with regards to the court, and exectuive privilege, and until a future court, EXPANDS the role of executive privilege and how the president may use it, the 1974 SCOTUS ruling is considered to be the “De-Facto” standard in the proper use of the authority, based on 198 years of documented presidential precedent.

In other words, George W Bush, will LOSE on the matter of Executive Privilege, just like Bill Clinton did a mere 9 years ago.

I rest my case.

:|

I need my head examined.

Just doing my civic duty.

:D