Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[mainiac]

An yet, habeus corpus was partially suspended by the patriot act, and the lawmakers who penned it felt it was safe to do so.

Did they do so, at least in part, because of this "temporary" suspension being given and recinded in the past, making it appear more legitimate?

Irrelevant.  Whether or not the powers were reinstituted at another time does not change that they were given up in 1865.

What you are doing here is changing the subject of the debate.  But I am not debating you over whether there is erosion of the range of acceptable government behavior over time.  I am debating the thesis that temporary powers are not.  If you do not wish to debate the subject, that is fine.  But you can not show that I am "wrong" about this subject by debating another topic.

I may seem obsessed about this topic.  That is because I find this behavior very interesting.  I picked a very narrow, very simple statement to take issue with.  I have done my best to avoid straying away from it.  But it seems like we are right back where we started in this discussion.  It seems rather illuminating about why this thread is so rage inducing.

[smirk]

All of which will be interpreted in a myriad of ways too.

This is a problem inherent to language. We won't be able to fix the problem of interpreting what a dead person meant until we can keep said dead person's head in a jar and ask them what they meant.

And Thomas Jefferson's head would tell us about militia... and then we'd step over into the next room after hearing him out and still argue over what exactly his words meant.

One of my favorite Nietzsche quotes: "...as our economists still have not got tired of smelling such a unity in the word 'value' and of looking for the original root concept of value. As if all words were not pockets into which now this and now that has been put, and now many things at once!"

[FearfulJesuit]

I think certain members here are making a mistake in confusing laws and powers still on the books with laws and powers that are still valid. Should we be worried about executive overreach? Absolutely. But surely there is no executive in the western world with more overreach than Elizabeth II, who, simply by refusing to grant Royal Assent to a bill, can effectively shut down Parliament. Sounds worrying...except that the last time a British monarch refused to grant assent was Queen Anne in 1714.

[Hotfire90]

.

[Sirus]

Okay, for the record I have nothing to do with those people

[Zangi]

I think certain members here are making a mistake in confusing laws and powers still on the books with laws and powers that are still valid. Should we be worried about executive overreach? Absolutely. But surely there is no executive in the western world with more overreach than Elizabeth II, who, simply by refusing to grant Royal Assent to a bill, can effectively shut down Parliament. Sounds worrying...except that the last time a British monarch refused to grant assent was Queen Anne in 1714.

Except that Britain doesn't really have an arena of politics with strong ideology on the level of 'everything goes my way or everyone will go to hell (and I'll blame you for it, cause you made me do it)'.

Plus ya know, we have a huge faction of people trying to invalidate Obama's presidency.  Britain doesn't really have the same thing when it comes to trying to do the same to the Monarchy.  Nor any problems with the Monarchy having hardline political agendas that run counter to the legislation going on.

[PTTG??]

All of which will be interpreted in a myriad of ways too.

This is a problem inherent to language. We won't be able to fix the problem of interpreting what a dead person meant until we can keep said dead person's head in a jar and ask them what they meant.

And Thomas Jefferson's head would tell us about militia... and then we'd step over into the next room after hearing him out and still argue over what exactly his words meant.

To be fair, Thomas Jefferson would probably be saying things like "What do you mean you freed my slaves! I didn't mean ALL of them!"

[Owlbread]

Except that Britain doesn't really have an arena of politics with strong ideology on the level of 'everything goes my way or everyone will go to hell (and I'll blame you for it, cause you made me do it)'.

We do have politicians who would be that way if they got into power, but thankfully they are nowhere near.

Plus ya know, we have a huge faction of people trying to invalidate Obama's presidency.  Britain doesn't really have the same thing when it comes to trying to do the same to the Monarchy.

No, but we did have a large amount of people who wanted to "invalidate" or impeach Tony Blair. They had very good reasons for wanting to do so in my opinion, but that's another matter. There is a general mistake here in focusing on the Monarch rather than the PM, who is essentially an unelected American-style President nowadays. We can thank Margaret Thatcher for doing that.

Nor any problems with the Monarchy having hardline political agendas that run counter to the legislation going on.

They do have political agendas of their own, but they tend to be non-party political.

[misko27]

Hey wierd, I got your law. Amendment 14, US constitution. I'm on the phone, so you have to look it up yourself.

[GlyphGryph]

http://www.redistrictinggame.org/launchgame.php

[Owlbread]

I've been doing my best to avoid commenting too much on this particular topic because, I admit, I don't really understand American politics well enough. However, I must ask you fellows for clarification because I think I'm now gaining an understanding of what's going on. Is the Republican party... holding the entire United States hostage so they can "talk" to Obama?

[Darvi]

One faction within the Republican party, yes.

[Owlbread]

One faction within the Republican party, yes.

Seemingly the most powerful faction if they're able to pull off something like this.

[Darvi]

Not really, their political system is just that broken.

[GlyphGryph]

They are trying to get everything they want despite having lost every vote and most of the elections held on the issues.

They are saying it's not fair that stuff is happening that they didn't vote for, and they will be more than happy to break the government if it doesn't do what they want anyway.

Seemingly the most powerful faction if they're able to pull off something like this.

Nope! Actually, it's the weakest faction by numbers and power. But they do have some support from other factions (who are basically using them as a proxy) and most importantly, the one guy in charge is doing exactly what they want.

Here's my question:
Why the fuck does Boehner control what bills get sent to the floor?
Where the fuck is that in the constitution, and how the fuck does that work? Why, exactly, can't they just fucking ignore him.