Paladin 77

Since when do we do things that help Iran? What Bush did is enable Iraq to select a government like Iran who Bush tells us is the biggest threat we face.

The Treasury issues IOU's, which are the trust fund, for any money taken from Social Security. That has NOTHING to do with paying for the war.

The failure of the trade policy has done nothing to solve North Korea or the war on terror. Where do you come up with such BS!

If you believe we are doing the best we can to secure our Border you are NUTS. Bush said it would take anther 10,000 border Guards and did NOTHING to ask Congress to give his what he said was needed to protect the border. Use that BS when a terrorist group brings the next 9/11 into our country via the unprotected borders and ports.

You do not have the slightest ides of what you are talking about. Live in your dream world with Bush!

drmiler WRONG! WRONG! The Courts interpret the laws. Enforcement is the responsibility of the Executive through the Attorney General who reports to the President

How so? Does the AG impose the sentences? Or are they imposed by a member of the "judiciary"? IE: a judge. And for both you and Paladin, if you want to get "really" picky, the "law" is enforced by the "police" who are part of the judiciary system. Which is why they are refered to as "Officers of the court".

Since when do we do things that help Iran?

I don't know this is the first I have heard of it. Please explain what you are talking about.

What Bush did is enable Iraq to select a government like Iran who Bush tells us is the biggest threat we face.

It would be better if you studied the two systems you might if you open your eyes see a differenc.

The Treasury issues IOU's, which are the trust fund, for any money taken from Social Security. That has NOTHING to do with paying for the war.

The treasury can not touch SS money without a law being passed by the Congress. It has only happened twice to my knowledge 1966 and 1967.

The failure of the trade policy has done nothing to solve North Korea or the war on terror. Where do you come up with such BS!

I stated that it helped us with China to deal with North Korea. I get such BS from the NYT, CNN, and other right wing news media.

If you believe we are doing the best we can to secure our Border you are NUTS.

You sir, are dishonest. I said that we are doing the best we can with what we have.

Bush said it would take anther 10,000 border Guards and did NOTHING to ask Congress to give his what he said was needed to protect the border.

So you blame the President because he did not get what he asked for? The budget is approved by the Congress not the President. Congress adds things in and takes things out all the time during the budget process. But according to you all the blame falls on the president. Nice blinders you have, do they come in other colours besides rose?

Use that BS when a terrorist group brings the next 9/11 into our country via the unprotected borders and ports.

Oh, are you suggesting we continue with the wire taps, and the e-mail reading? You know the stuff that has worked in bringing down terrorist.

You do not have the slightest ides of what you are talking about. Live in your dream world with Bush!

Sorry but as a consultant to an agency under home land security I think I can see the picture a little better than you. Yup, they just hired me last month.

How so? Does the AG impose the sentences? Or are they imposed by a member of the "judiciary"? IE: a judge. And for both you and Paladin, if you want to get "really" picky, the "law" is enforced by the "police" who are part of the judiciary system. Which is why they are refered to as "Officers of the court".

My friend,

The AG works for the executive branch, appointed by the president with the advice and concent of the legislative branch. They are responsible for enforcing the laws. The Judicial branch are the judges from the suprieme court down. The police come under the executive branch of government.

My friend, The AG works for the executive branch, appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the legislative branch. They are responsible for enforcing the laws. The Judicial branch are the judges from the supreme court down. The police come under the executive branch of government.

Sorry sir, but I think you're wrong! From Wikipedia:

[edit] Work as a police officer A Police Constable of West Yorkshire Police on patrol police officer (also known as a constable in some countries) is employed in most cases by national, state/provincial or municipal governments and has the responsibility (or duty) of enforcing federal, state/provincial laws along with municipal/city ordinances. They also have the responsibility of keeping the public peace. This is usually done by uniformed pro-active patrolling within their jurisdiction looking for and investigating law breakers, and by responding to calls for service. Police officers are required to keep notes of all situations in which they take action and appear as witnesses during both criminal prosecutions and civil litigation. One of the lesser-known but most time-consuming duties of officers is completion of documentation of activity ("reporting").

Link

From what you're saying is that ultimately, control of the police force would rest with the president. Since he is in charge of the executive branch. And in that you are incorrect.

drmiler

We are not talking about the executive imposing a sentence in court. We are talking about enforcing the laws like the police, FBI, Border Patrol, and IRS etc. That is what Bush is not doing. The end result may end up in court but without the executive (President at the federal level and Governor at the State Level etc.) we have no enforcement of our laws. The courts can not arrest people or choose to rule on a person or issue. The FIRST step is the responsibility of the Executive and then if warranted a trial follows.

drmiler We are not talking about the executive imposing a sentence in court. We are talking about enforcing the laws like the police, FBI, Border Patrol, and IRS etc. That is what Bush is not doing. The end result may end up in court but without the executive (President at the federal level and Governor at the State Level etc.) we have no enforcement of our laws. The courts can not arrest people or choose to rule on a person or issue. The FIRST step is the responsibility of the Executive and then if warranted a trial follows.

You're "STILL" incorrect. While the president does have ultimate control over the FBI, CIA, IRS and Border Patrol. He "does" not control the police. They are "state and municipal" employees, not "federal" ones. And like I said earlier:

Work as a police officer A Police Constable of West Yorkshire Police on patrol police officer (also known as a constable in some countries) is employed in most cases by national, state/provincial or municipal governments and has the responsibility (or duty) of enforcing federal, state/provincial laws along with municipal/city ordinances. They also have the responsibility of keeping the public peace. This is usually done by uniformed pro-active patrolling within their jurisdiction looking for and investigating law breakers, and by responding to calls for service. Police officers are required to keep notes of all situations in which they take action and appear as witnesses during both criminal prosecutions and civil litigation. One of the lesser-known but most time-consuming duties of officers is completion of documentation of activity ("reporting").

I would like you to go to this link and "show me" where it says the "police dept." is under the presidents control. Link

drmiler

I am talking about FEDERAL LAW. Immigration laws, Border security, FBI, Homeland security, ICE, IRS. The laws these agencies are responsible to enforce are under the authority of the President and are being IGNORED!

You're "STILL" incorrect. While the president does have ultimate control over the FBI, CIA, IRS and Border Patrol. He "does" not control the police. They are "state and municipal" employees, not "federal" ones. And like I said earlier:

I hate defending an idiot but even a clock is write twice a day. A Mayor is the chief executive of his city. The city council makes laws. The police under the control of the Mayor enforce the law. A Governor is the chief executive of his state, the legislature write the laws and the state police under the control of the the Governor enforce the laws. The President is the chief executive of the federal government.

Each has a judicial branch the third leg in the stool. The legislators write the laws, the chief executive signs the law putting it into effect. To ensure all is done legally the Judicial Branch oversees the actions in a court of law. If the government breaks the laws as interpreted by the Judge the judge has the right to drop all charges or impose sanctions on the government. The purpose of a judge is to see that the defendant is given the full benefit of the doubt and the government is not abusing its power over the individual.

I hate defending an idiot but even a clock is write twice a day. A Mayor is the chief executive of his city. The city council makes laws. The police under the control of the Mayor enforce the law. A Governor is the chief executive of his state, the legislature write the laws and the state police under the control of the the Governor enforce the laws. The President is the chief executive of the federal government.

I still believe you're wrong. What you're saying is correct to a point. But your ending statement says it all. At the "state or municipal" level they are just that. That's why they have a state level of government.

I still believe you're wrong. What you're saying is correct to a point. But your ending statement says it all. At the "state or municipal" level they are just that. That's why they have a state level of government.

Right and at the federal level you have the federal police. FBI, U.S. marshals, and the DEA work under the DOJ. Secret Service and the IRS are under the Treasury department. They are supposed to enforce federal laws only and are under the control of the Executive Branch of government.

Paladin 77

It is Federal Laws I have been talking about. That is why it is Bush that is responsible. Immigration, IRS etc have allowed millions to come into our country illegally, fail to pay taxes and suck the life out of local and state governments. In addition, \because we have not taken control of our borders, anyone could come into our country and bring WMD to use against us. What has Bush done-- NOTHING. He did not even request the added border agents HE SAID WERE NEEDED!

Right and at the federal level you have the federal police. FBI, U.S. marshals, and the DEA work under the DOJ. Secret Service and the IRS are under the Treasury department. They are supposed to enforce federal laws only and are under the control of the Executive Branch of government.

Sorry sir but there is no such thing as "federal police". That's what the US marshals are for.

Sorry sir but there is no such thing as "federal police". That's what the US marshals are for.

Ok, let me help you out here. The print is small so you might not have noticed the period after the word police. followed by the types of police.

It is Federal Laws I have been talking about. That is why it is Bush that is responsible. Immigration, IRS etc have allowed millions to come into our country illegally, fail to pay taxes and suck the life out of local and state governments. In addition, \because we have not taken control of our borders, anyone could come into our country and bring WMD to use against us. What has Bush done-- NOTHING. He did not even request the added border agents HE SAID WERE NEEDED!

Ok, we have not arrested anyone for being here illegally. You are correct I have never seen Mr. Bush arrest anyone since he took office.

Sorry sir but there is no such thing as "federal police". That's what the US marshals are for. Ok, let me help you out here. The print is small so you might not have noticed the period after the word police. followed by the types of police.

You're correct I did miss the period. But here's another salient point. A state or municipal police officer might arrest you for a certain offense whereas a marshal might give you a pass on it because what you did is not a "felony". Or a federally chargeable offense. In other words there might not be a federal law covering what you did.

You're correct I did miss the period. But here's another salient point. A state or municipal police officer might arrest you for a certain offense whereas a marshal might give you a pass on it because what you did is not a "felony". Or a federally chargeable offense. In other words there might not be a federal law covering what you did.

Very true! The problem we have is that local governments are refusing to arrest people for federal offences. They refuse to arrest people suspected of being here illegally or notifying the feds when they arrest an illegal for local offences. These rules are made up by the local chief executive to protest the war on terror, and or the president. My feeling on this is if they refused to even alert the feds we should fail to fund the locals with federal dollars. End highway, and law enforcement dollars to those cities and states that have publicly stated they will not obey the laws of the land. See how long they stay in office. But in doing something like that would only jeopardize citizens so it is not practical.

Very true! The problem we have is that local governments are refusing to arrest people for federal offenses. They refuse to arrest people suspected of being here illegally or notifying the feds when they arrest an illegal for local offenses. These rules are made up by the local chief executive to protest the war on terror, and or the president. My feeling on this is if they refused to even alert the feds we should fail to fund the locals with federal dollars. End highway, and law enforcement dollars to those cities and states that have publicly stated they will not obey the laws of the land. See how long they stay in office. But in doing something like that would only jeopardize citizens so it is not practical.

I'd have to agree on this. If they won't even notifying the feds then they are "not" doing their job. Even if it's because it's their chief saying it, they can refuse to follow it. Or bring suit against the chief.

Or bring suit against the chief.

Tell me what flunky cop is going to go against the chief executive who signs his paycheck. It would be a quick transition from cop to unemployed cop.

Tell me what flunky cop is going to go against the chief executive who signs his paycheck. It would be a quick transition from cop to unemployed cop.

I'll agree to the last, but not the first. You're correct it would be a quick trip to the unemployment line. However the "chief of police" is not the one signing their checks. That would be the city/county treasurer.

Yeah, when you said Chief I was thinking the Mayor not the chief of police.

It is the right of col the political hack to not answer my questions or respond to my comments. I will defend his rights with the last breath of his life. But it makes me think that his silence is his way of saying he lost the argument and that I was right and he was wrong again. Just my opinion.