12 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFI am saying that Obama should repsond to the conerns of the Senator from his own party and let the cards fall where they may instead of ignoring his concerns.
So you're saying Obama should have taken the case that his czars are unconstitutional before the Supreme Court himself?
You are seriously saying that Obama administration did not "consider the constitutionality" of czars? And this is based on what evidence: the fact that you disgree with them?
12 Sep 09
Originally posted by whodeyWhy should he?
I am saying that Obama should repsond to the conerns of the Senator from his own party and let the cards fall where they may instead of ignoring his concerns.
He has the country to run.
If the czars are unconstitutional then why is there no case being processed before the Supreme Court by politicians or constitutional scholars. If Byrd was saying something you didn't agree with, you probably would not mention Byrd's name. Why should Obama be sidetracked by opposition as long as he is proceeding democratically and legally?
12 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFYou have just proven that you are just derailing any serious conversation of the matter. You didn't even look at what the constitution says or you wouldn't have asked it. I always provide you guys with ample links and sources but you keep ignoring them.
Why should he?
He has the country to run.
If the czars are unconstitutional then why is there no case being processed before the Supreme Court by politicians or constitutional scholars. If Byrd was saying something you didn't agree with, you probably would not mention Byrd's name. Why should Obama be sidetracked by opposition as long as he is proceeding democratically and legally?
12 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFIt like chess FMF. You position for your peices to have the maximum movement available for them on the board, thus increasing their power over the board. For the sake of argument, lets say you do this in the name of efficiency with no intent of using that power to lambast your opponent. In fact, you are just increasing your power to make sure that the worst result is a stalemate. Well that is great so long as you are the only one at the helm and/or you don't change your mind.
Yes thanks. And this is the last American president. And there will be forced innoculations. And American NWO troops will fire on U.S. citizens. And Obama is comparable to Hitler. Blah blah blah.
12 Sep 09
Originally posted by joe beyserYou get ignored because you are a twat. Fish heads, "Obama is the last President of the USA" and lame insults = thread derailment.
You have just proven that you are just derailing any serious conversation of the matter. You didn't even look at what the constitution says or you wouldn't have asked it. I always provide you guys with ample links and sources but you keep ignoring them.
I know very well what the constitution says on this.
The czars are not unconstitutional as far as I understand it. But when and if the Supreme Court rules on it, then I suppose we will have a precedent set. Personally, I think - and predict - that czars are a political innovation and that the next Republican administration will use extensively, with Democrats grumbling about their constitutionality from the sidelines - with the roles being once again reversed when the Democrats form an administration after that.
The reason that no one will take it to the Supreme Court and win is because a system of technocrat managers implementing executive branch policy does not clash with the constitution.
12 Sep 09
Originally posted by whodeySheer waffle.
It like chess FMF. You position for your peices to have the maximum movement available for them on the board, thus increasing their power over the board. For the sake of argument, lets say you do this in the name of efficiency with no intent of using that power to lambast your opponent. In fact, you are just increasing your power to make sure that the wors ...[text shortened]... ll that is great so long as you are the only one at the helm and/or you don't change your mind.
What additional powers do czars have that the executive branch doesn't already have?
If the power of the executive has been increased then it's logical that the other branches of governement now have relatively less, right? Ok, then. Examples please?
12 Sep 09
The post that was quoted here has been removedRe read it? This is a debating point?
You are on the losing side of an argument as it currently stands.
When the case comes before the Supreme Court as it surely will if, as you say, Obama's transgression can be compared to a President aboloshing the Congress, then if I find myself on the wrong side of this issue I will be first to admit it.
12 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFI am going to go out on a limb here and give you benifit of doubt that you are serious for once and I will get back to you tommorow after I get some sources and study up on it some more. As for it being unconstitutional it is only a side issue as the wording is clear.
Sheer waffle.
What additional powers do czars have that the executive branch doesn't already have?
If the power of the executive has been increased then it's logical that the other branches of governement now have relatively less, right? Ok, then. Examples please?
12 Sep 09
Originally posted by joe beyserDon't bother. I don't take you seriously and have no personal respect for you since I read that grotesque diatribe against homosexuals that was swiftly deleted by the site. I find you to be a boring dunce, unfunny and at your very core meanspirited and paranoid in the ugliest most intellectually shrivelling way. So do nothing on my account, friend. I am willing to hear whodey out. And I will certainly be interested if any substantial posters weigh in. I'm perfectly willing to change my mind, even. But as for you, don't bother. You are just a little nobody who's lashing out incoherently and who compares Obama to Hitler and thinks he isn't an American and all the other tinfoil-sporting trash. Your thoughts or links or cuts and pastes on this or anything else may just as well be spam or trash. If someone with more credibility than you points me towards something salient, then I will follow it up. What you think or believe is of no interest to me whatsoever.
I am going to go out on a limb here and give you benifit of doubt that you are serious for once and I will get back to you tommorow after I get some sources and study up on it some more. As for it being unconstitutional it is only a side issue as the wording is clear.
12 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFThat's why the site shouldn't be deleting such posts.
Don't bother. I don't take you seriously and have no personal respect for you since I read that grotesque diatribe against homosexuals that was swiftly deleted by the site.
Now I don't know what you're referring to and people can't see someone's true colours.
12 Sep 09
Originally posted by shavixmirOne of the worst I've seen. Real twisted stuff. But you're right. It's not there for others to see. So joe could claim he never wrote it. Or I might - for some reason - be lying about it. So I suppose I shouldn't cite it. But I saw it and joe knows I saw it. So he knows why he doesn't command any respect at all anymore. At least in the minds of any decent people who might have had the brief opportunity to read that particular post.
That's why the site shouldn't be deleting such posts.
Now I don't know what you're referring to and people can't see someone's true colours.