…to find the TREASONOUS scum among the Blackwater contractors…

…who stole those hundreds of thousands of weapons (from Iraq)…

…in order to supply the rich elitist facists al Cracker private army…

…Lib/Progs…

…get armed…

…’cause they’re coming…

1. Those pretending the Constitution is “gone” are relying on sophistry. The Constitution is alive. It remains in tact. The violations are not precedent; but evidence.

2. Those making weak arguments do not inspire confidence or support. Beware. Follow them at your own risk.

3. It’s not a credible argument — by way of giving one weight or credit — to assert because one is a veteran that that view should be given attention over others. Those who refuse to accept the Constitution is still around appear to be delusional.

4. You’re either witht he Constitution; or you’re not. The Constittuion has not gone away.

5. Presidential signing statements are not law; they are views. Those views may not be legal. The President’s language is not law; that belongs to the court to decide. Executive ORders which direct people to volate the warrant requirement are not lwaful.

6. Members of Congrss, when they ignore their oath, can be prosecuted. One line of evidence for the Grand Jury to review is wehther the Member of Congress used all laweful options; and whether they knew,, or should have konwn, thta the Act was illegal and contrary to the law.

7. Illegal activity isnot precedence; and Presidential assertions outside Court is not law. He can only sign or not sign an Act of Congress. The President has been delegated some rule making authority; but that power is one Congress retains through ARticle 1 Section 8; and can revoke.

8. The President has one power: Executive. To enforce teh law. When he does not defend the Constitution, and the congress violates the Constituion with an act, that Act cannot be enforced or followed.

9. THere are lawful options on the table to review this line of evidence. States may prosecute a Member of Congress. Federal Government inaction is not a mandate for all to ignore teh lwa. [Talk to Judge Vaugn Walker; states are not obliged to assent to Federal Office illegal acts; nor heed the Congress when the Congress directs illegal activity; or when congress refuses to enforce teh law.]

FISA violations are measured by teh law which existed then; Congress may pass a new law, but that doesn’t change the governing law when the FISA violations first occurred. it’s incorrect to say that violating the warrant requirement creates a precedence to allow other violations. That’s contrary to the oath and 42 USC 1983 training.

“Since so many crimes have been committed without enforcement there is no way to NOW start upholding the law!!!!!! Even if they tried to enforce the law, the courts woudl have no choice but to throw it out!!!”

You have no basis to say that the court would have “no choice” but to throw it out. That is absurd. You’re asserting on a general basis a rule that says the courts may not exericse judicial power on a narrow issue of Constittuional law; FISA violations; or oath of office violations. I don’t believe you have any case law to support your assertion. You’re making things up. I think you want to be convinced that things are hopeless. Rest assured, things are not hopless: The Constittuion is fully in tact; and illegal activity does not become precedence to new enforce the Constittuion’s warrant requirement. NSA officers now this. They could be linked with war crimes over these illegal issues: Improer use of unlwaflly captured infromation for use during unlwaful prisoer abuse. That’s a war crime, if convicted. Is that what you would like to see happen?

YOu fail to link this assertion to the Constitution. Violating the Constittuion doesn’t become precedent for anything. It’s illegal.

Your argument isn’t valid. This doesn’t follow or related to the FISA issue today: “How can something someone made up be legal????? It is because of PRESIDENCE!!!!!”

You’re answering your own questions with irrevant answers.

The issue is: P R C E D E N C E.

Irrelevant point.

War crimes are not legal; and Congress and the President have no power to assert that Genocide and illegal warfare are precedence.

Your argument fails.

Privilege isn’t one for the President to assert and all to blindly obey but for the Court to not recognize. If. The. Court. Chooses. To. Ignore it.

Privilege has to be invoked; when not properly invoked, it is not valid. And the Court is not required to recognize it. Precedent is not precedence. It can change: Look at Bush’s commutation of Libby; that defied precedence.

I’m done!!!!

When you hit puberty, come back and we’ll pick back up on this……

By then, you might actually see how life works and realize that what you are saying is great for “THEORY” but does not work in REAL WORLD situations…….

You still have not gotten off that “THEORY” claim!!!!

“Ths is not a valid assertion: “Because when the next president comes in, they cannot do anything to that president for doing the same thing……. PRESIDENCE has been set!!!! If they don’t stop it now, it cannot be stopped…..””

Right!!!! So is that why the Supreme Court has upheld “Executive Priviledge” even though there is no such thing in the CONSTITUTION??????

How can something someone made up be legal????? It is because of PRESIDENCE!!!!!

So if Bush gets out of office and nothing is done about the crimes, then the next president CAN claim that it is IN FACT LEGAL because nothing was done! JUST LIKE “EXECUTIVE PRIVILEDGE”, which is not in the CONSTITUTION or in ANY law but is now CONSIDERED LAW!

Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 5:59 pm”

Then I suggest you start going around the country and start demanding that all those laws that are being BROKEN are upheld, and see just how far you get!!!

When you turn 18, come back and visit. You CLEARLY do not have any experience to udnerstand how that works……

People are breaking laws EVERYDAY, that are not enforced!!!! Because they are not enforced and have not been enforced for 20 or more years means that they cannot be UPHELD!!!!

Since so many crimes have been committed without enforcement there is no way to NOW start upholding the law!!!!!! Even if they tried to enforce the law, the courts woudl have no choice but to throw it out!!!

MAN ARE YOU THICK HEADED!

Ths is not a valid assertion: “Because when the next president comes in, they cannot do anything to that president for doing the same thing……. PRESIDENCE has been set!!!! If they don’t stop it now, it cannot be stopped…..”

Refusign to stop now what is illegal doesn’t mean future Presidents can violate the law. That is not a valid argument. Saying “it cannot be stopped” is illusory. Precedence isn ot a precedent for anarchy and lawlessness. What some fail to ralize is that Congressional ianction on impeachment does not bind all Americans to inaction. THe President can still be prosecuted outside imepachment; Congressional decisions to not assert their oath does nto bind all people to not enforce the law. Rather, look at the NSA litigation by the States. Congress isn’t doing this, but the states are. Again, to argue there is a “precedent” for lawulessness; or that the US government — because it refuses to enforce teh law — binds us all to do ntohing, is non-sense. Explain the State AGs who are doing what congress refuses on the NSA illegal activity. That action has not been stopped.

Federal action does nto require defer4nce what their inaction allows illegal activity. It may have some deference, but it cannto compel assent when the FEdearl Government refsues to do what it should. Justice demands enforcement of the law, not a common agreement to take a signal from the lazy Congress to do nothing at all levels.

Your status is a separte issue than your argument.”

Absolutely NOT!!!

You were the one making the following comments:

“If you woul dlike to believe — given an illegal act of Congress — that that Act must be followed, go ahead. You’re following illegal acts. There is no legal defense for you. It is clearly illegal.

Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 2:12 pm”

“Choose whehter you want to be an enemy of the Constitution; or with the Constitution.”

“Either you defend this constitution; or you are an enemy. Choose.”

“I am with this existing Constitution. If you are against me, then you are asserting you are an enemy of the Constitution.

Live with those consequenes. It remains to be seen whether that choice is one that is adjudicated.”

“Choose wisely.”

My service DOES play into this! I have OFFERED MY LIFE for this country by serving to protect the CONSTITUTION……

Then YOU stand there and ACCUSE me of being a ENEMY!!!!!

My service plays in very well you little pissant!!!!! If you were 18, I would back hand you so hard that you would pass back through time to your conception.

Yes, let’s remove Bush and several other traitors to our Constitution from office. I think Anon has done his job. He probably got paid to hijack this thread and he did quite well. We won’t forget who betrayed the Constitution and our freedoms in 2008 and 2010. Their names and their votes are all on record.

No, this is not correct: Inaction on the law enforcemetn is not precedent. Illegal activity is not precedent for “legalizign” more illegal activity. That is contrary to the notion of “legitimacy” — deference to written law.

Comment by zull — August 8, 2007 @

I’ll go along with that. Getting angry with all the Democrats is exactly what traitor Rove wants to happen. The Republicans are obstructionists and they need to be labeled as such in 2008.

I notice that YOU simply selectively pick and chose what you want to argue!!!!

Though you are an articulate person, you are not smart!!!!

Your argument is “THEORY”, and we are NOT talking “THEORY”!!!!

Does Torcher go against the Constitution?

Does Renditions go against the Constitution?

Does holding an American in jail for over 4 years without access to an attorney go against the Constitution?

I can go on and on….. The point is not that it violates the Constitution!!!! Again!!!!! WE ALL KNOW THAT IT DOES!!!!!

But when Congress, the courts, and the American people do nothing about that then those RIGHTS are GONE FOREVER!!!!

So if they are then GONE, it is IMPOSSIBE to get them back!!!!!

Just because the Constitution says so, does not make it so!!!! It has to be UPHELD!!!! If it is not upheld, the the Constitution means nothing and that RIGHT is lost forever (GONE)…..

Your thinking in an ABSOLUTE, BLACK AND WHITE and life, law, politics are NOT like that……

I noticed that YOU did not address my post about YOU being a TRAITOR!!!

Since you put such high standards on ONE Congressman, you should be held to the same standards since by the CONSTITUTION you are the one with the power. So since YOU have the power, is it not YOU who are the one responsible because YOU have done NOTHING but claim “THEORY” on this site?