Constitutional Scholars, please reply

What is wrong with this statement.

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/campaignforthecourt/2006/01/sen_kennedy.html
from JoeUser Forums

In another example of extreme inebriation, our dislustrious Senator from Taxachusettes, said the following:

Ultimately, the courts will make the final judgment whether the White House has gone too far.  Independent and impartial judges must assess the proper balance between protecting our liberties and protecting our national security.

Now this is one of the most senior senators, so one would assume (incorrectly) that he understandst he constitution.

That being a given (he is senior but not a scholar), can anyone tell me how many ways that statement is wrong?  Actually, since that is a snippet of this {hic} speech, and not the entire rambling inanities, there are but a few.

But they are MAJOR ones.  Not only against an amendment, but against the very basis of the document itself.

politics
7,366 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hey Davad70, want to tell me how I am wrong now?  Please!  Pretty please with whipped cream on top?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

This is a completely different issue than the one you were lying about previously.

I did not lie.  I proved my point.  However since that is your opening, your post is deleted.  Now, do you want to respond to this, or lie some more?  I have already documented you lying twice now.  Do we make it 3 times?

TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
You have proved no such thing. I did reply to this...that's the part you deleted. Since you asked me to reply and then deleted it then please take my name off your blog.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ultimately, the courts will make the final judgment whether the White House has gone too far. Independent and impartial judges must assess the proper balance between protecting our liberties and protecting our national security.


I guess I missed the earlier fireworks between you and Davad, and I'm not a Constitutional Scholar (but I play one on the internet), but here goes with my short answer to your quiz:

1: The courts do not make first, secondary or final judgements on the legality of the actions of a president. Oddly enough (but ever so telling) the U.S. Constitution charges the Senate with this responsibility. Being a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, you would think the drunk democrat would have at least picked this up along the way... maybe during the Clinton impeachment?

2: He could be referring to the Supreme Court (which does have authority to review the laws and executive orders of the president, but the Supreme Court is not part of "the courts" and the members are not referred to as "judges", but "justices"... again, I would expect a senior U.S. Senator, and member of the Judiciary committee to know the difference.

3: There is a court set up to so that government officials can obtain warrants and challenge laws and regulations without comprimising national security,. However the government officials who claimed to have had a problem with the NSA's directive didn't seem to have included this court in their objections. Apparently they preferred to sit on the information until it was "leaked" and then use it as a political chip in the game. Now it's out of that court's hands, as that court is not Constitutionally able to rule on the legality of current actions by the president. Again, only the Senate is given this authority.



To me, this is a classic case of a Senator trying to shirk his Constitutional responsibilities on to someone else. If president Bush's executive order needs to be challenged, it is the job of the House and Senate to try to reverse it. If their is a Constitutional question, then the Supreme Court has the authority to rule on it. If sounds like the Senator doesn't have the guts to use his constitutional authority to challenge Prs. Bush directly.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's not up to the courts to decide what the government does. It is up to those who control the government... or should I say who is supposed to be controlling the government, the people. After all, that's what this country is about....isn't it?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Independent and impartial judges must assess the proper balance between protecting our liberties and protecting our national security.


Hmmm, I coulda sworn it was the job of judges to ajudicate legal issues. Isn't it their job to determine whether someone has violated the law of the land, and not decide what that law should be? Seems the old drunk needs to go back and study high school civics.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

You have proved no such thing. I did reply to this...that's the part you deleted. Since you asked me to reply and then deleted it then please take my name off your blog.

You have not read it of do not understand the written word.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

To me, this is a classic case of a Senator trying to shirk his Constitutional responsibilities on to someone else. If president Bush's executive order needs to be challenged, it is the job of the House and Senate to try to reverse it. If their is a Constitutional question, then the Supreme Court has the authority to rule on it.

You were first!  And you did hit the 2 main points I was trying to get!  Congratulations!  Have a cookie!

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's not up to the courts to decide what the government does. It is up to those who control the government... or should I say who is supposed to be controlling the government, the people. After all, that's what this country is about....isn't it?

That is correct.  The supreme court is not a check on just the Executive, but on the Executive and Legislative, just as the Executive is a check on the Judiciary, as well as with the advise and consent of the Legislative.  To imply that the role of the surpeme court is to reign in the Executive is flat out wrong as Parated2k stated.  And for a senior senator to be so ill informed of both his job and the role of the 3 branches of government speaks very poorly for said senator.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Seems the old drunk needs to go back and study high school civics.

Go back implies he ever did in the first place.  And the latter is highly doubtful.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's pretty distasteful to delete my reply, but then quote part of it. In effect, you've edited my own post. Therefore I asked you to remove reference to me on your blog.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why not let us see the comments of the person you are slamming here and accusing of being a liar, DrG?


Basically he's referring to me making a comment a while ago that I would ignore him in the future and then not doing so. Oh, the shame...the horror! I'm the worst kind of liar!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's pretty distasteful to delete my reply, but then quote part of it. In effect, you've edited my own post. Therefore I asked you to remove reference to me on your blog.

I deleted the rest of your response because it was insulting and off point, as I explained.  I quoted the only printable part.  Clean up you act, or honor your promise your choice.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

As a matter of fact, I'll bet he deletes this too.

No, I think I will let it stand so all can see how petty and spiteful you are.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Basically he's referring to me making a comment a while ago

No, I am talking about your comment.  Please note, none of your others are deleted.  Now I did not save your comment, and you are free to repost.  But dont lie to me on my blog.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I deleted the rest of your response because it was insulting and off point, as I explained. I quoted the only printable part. Clean up you act, or honor your promise your choice.


What exactly did I lie about? If I had done anything inflammatory or more insulting than the part you quoted you certainly would not have deleted it. You would have happliy left it there for all to see. The part you deleted was in direct response to the question that you posed in this post. There was nothing that needed cleaned up or anything off topic whatsoever. The part you quoted was the only part that was NOT completely on topic. Don't tell me I need to clean up my act, I have done nothing but call a spade a spade. As was described above, you have a long history of this behavior, not I.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why not let us see the comments of the person you are slamming here and accusing of being a liar, DrG?


That's not gonna happen.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

What exactly did I lie about? If I had done anything inflammatory or more insulting than the part you quoted you certainly would not have deleted it. You would have happliy left it there for all to see. The part you deleted was in direct response to the question that you posed in this post. There was nothing that needed cleaned up or anything off topic whatsoever. The part you quoted was the only part that was NOT completely on topic. Don't tell me I need to clean up my act, I have done nothing but call a spade a spade. As was described above, you have a long history of this behavior, not I.

Then why dont you repost it so that Little whip can see?  As the others?  You dont remember do you?  That is ok.  And if you are going to beleive everything you read (vis a vis long history) then why do you doubt anything I write?

The truth is I delete very few.  But when someone comes on my blog and starts insulting me, I have 2 choices.  Black list or delete.  Since I do want people to see what you write so they can decide for themself, I deleted, and did not black list you.  Let all others see and decide that you cannot tell the truth, and must constantly belittle the author and the work, without sources other than you opinion, or mis understanding for both.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

That's not gonna happen.

Because you are afraid to show it?  After all, I already admitted I did not save it.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then why dont you repost it so that Little whip can see? As the others? You dont remember do you? That is ok.


I do remember very well what I posted. I did post it after all. You're MO tells me that you would just claim that's not what I wrote originally anyways, so why bother?

Since I do want people to see what you write so they can decide for themself, I deleted, and did not black list you.


That makes a lot of sense there. How are others to decide for themselves if you deleted the comment??

Let all others see and decide that you cannot tell the truth, and must constantly belittle the author and the work, without sources other than you opinion, or mis understanding for both.


That's the best example of the pot calling the kettle black I've ever heard. Everyone knows that you post sources for most of your articles. That is, afterall what most of your posts are...links to stories. As far as me belittling people, that's just outlandish coming from you. The only people on this site that have ever come close to being insulted by me are yourself and the other doc. How many people around here have you belittled or insulted? I gladly admit to belittling your "work" because it is filled with misinformation most of the time. And I challenge you to show me one of your posts where I belittle it, without citing a source which indicates as much. I'll even clip a little into here for you.

Apparently, 4 weeks before 9-11-01, Zacarias Moussaoui was detained and questioned by the FBI based upon a tip from this flight school. The FBI, being good law abiding citizens they are, went to the FISA to obtain a search warrant for Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop. The court not only rejected the request, they even reprimanded Michael Resnick, the FBI officer in charge!

After you posted that I showed that it was false by linking showing no warrant requests were denied;Link

As well as a statement from someone involved in the case;

Consider the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the French Moroccan who came to the FBI's attention before Sept. 11 because he had asked a Minnesota flight school for lessons on how to steer an airliner, but not on how to take off or land. Even with this report, and with information from French intelligence that Moussaoui had been associating with Chechen rebels, the Justice Department decided there was not sufficient evidence to get a FISA warrant to allow the inspection of his computer files.Link


The disciplining of the FBI agent had nothing to do with this specific case.

So why is it that you are blaming this on the FISA court? And why would you speculate that the Judge may have resigned in shame when his court was never even asked by DOJ for a warrant?
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is, afterall what most of your posts are...links to stories.


No, the stories are the start of my opinions. Then I opine based upon reputable (some would say less than) sources. You never do. That is your short coming. Not mine. So lets see what you have said now......
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Apparently, 4 weeks before 9-11-01, Zacarias Moussaoui was detained and questioned by the FBI based upon a tip from this flight school. The FBI, being good law abiding citizens they are, went to the FISA to obtain a search warrant for Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop. The court not only rejected the request, they even reprimanded Michael Resnick, the FBI officer in charge!

After you posted that I showed that it was false by linking showing no warrant requests were denied;Link


Now why dont you post that over there? That has nothing to do with this topic, AS I STATED!

And you used a global qualifier and not a local one. As I POINTED out.

And then you called me a liar. Which you did not back up. Again showing that you do not know how to debate and dragging your falsehoods over to this issue (which I really wanted to keep on topic, but you do insist).

So let Little WHip read this and understand her folly in supporting a liberal. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Except I am not her enemy except in her own mind. And yours apparently.

Now, do you see why I deleted the original? I refuted you on that link and did not care to transfer it over. So why do you perisist in your fantasy that it was on topic?
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now why dont you post that over there?


I did post that over there.

And then you called me a liar. Which you did not back up. Again showing that you do not know how to debate and dragging your falsehoods over to this issue (which I really wanted to keep on topic, but you do insist).


Actually if you read, it is "backed up". You said the FISA court rejected the case. They never heard a case regarding Zacarias Moussaoui because neither the FBI or DOJ brought it to them.

Now, do you see why I deleted the original? I refuted you on that link and did not care to transfer it over. So why do you perisist in your fantasy that it was on topic?


On the contrary, I do see why you deleted it. Because you have issues with the truth.
I still contend that if it was off topic or inappropriate you would have definitely left it...to "back up" your ramblings.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

On the contrary, I do see why you deleted it. Because you have issues with the truth.
I still contend that if it was off topic or inappropriate you would have definitely left it...to "back up" your ramblings.

You never will, and you never refuted me.  instead, like most liberals you merely changed the parameters of the debate to frame your point, when, since I wrote the original, you never addressed.  And you still have not.

I am closing this one since no one else wants to comment, and you STILL cannot keep it on topic.  I would call you a slow learner, but then my nephew is DS and he is smarter than you.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: little_whipPosted: Tuesday, January 10, 2006
It's pretty distasteful to delete my reply, but then quote part of it. In effect, you've edited my own post.


Don't feel bad, davad, this is a common practice of his, and he's done it to me too, simply deletes anything that doesn't prop up his own self-inflated ego or anything that proves him wrong.

As a matter of fact, I'll bet he deletes this too.

Why not let us see the comments of the person you are slamming here and accusing of being a liar, DrG? Making such accusations and then deleting the responses of the accused is just as bad as flaming someone and preventing them from defending themselves by blacklisting them.

I'm not telling you what to do, of course, just "offering some alternatives," as you so love to do for everybody else.