Quote:President Obama signed an executive order Monday that will create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who continue to pose a significant threat to national security. The administration also said it will start new military commission trials for detainees there.
The announcements, coming more than two years after Obama vowed in another executive order to close the detention center, all but cements Guantanamo Bay's continuing role in U.S. counterterrorism policy.
Administration officials said the president is still committed to closing the prison, although he made no mention of that goal in a short statement Monday. The administration's original plans to create a detention center in the United States and prosecute some detainees in federal court have all but collapsed in the face of bipartisan congressional opposition.
The executive order recognizes the reality that some Guantanamo Bay detainees will remain in U.S. custody for many years, if not for life. The new system allows them the prospect of successfully arguing in the future that they should be released because they do not pose a threat.
"Today, I am announcing several steps that broaden our ability to bring terrorists to justice, provide oversight for our actions and ensure the humane treatment of detainees," Obama said in statement. "I strongly believe that the American system of justice is a key part of our arsenal in the war against al-Qaeda and its affiliates, and we will continue to draw on all aspects of our justice system - including [federal] Article III Courts - to ensure that our security and our values are strengthened."
But activists on either end of the debate over closing the prison cast the announcement as a reversal.
"It is virtually impossible to imagine how one closes Guantanamo in light of this executive order," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "In a little over two years, the Obama administration has done a complete about-face."
Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the order vindicated Obama's predecessor. "I commend the Obama Administration for issuing this Executive Order," he said in a statement. "The bottom line is that it affirms the Bush Administration policy that our government has the right to detain dangerous terrorists until the cessation of hostilities."
The executive order applies to at least 48 of the 172 detainees who remain at Guantanamo Bay. An inter-agency panel led by Justice Department lawyers determined that this group could not be prosecuted in military commissions or in federal court because evidentiary problems would hamper a trial. But intelligence assessments also concluded that these detainees remain a serious threat and could not be safely repatriated or resettled in a third country. The administration said it will hold reviews for detainees it plans to prosecute but has not charged.
The administration argues that it has the legal authority to continue to hold all of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay under the laws of war. Federal courts have backed that assertion, although they have found that some detainees should be released for a lack of evidence against them. The detainees will continue to have the right to petition the federal courts under the doctrine of habeas corpus.
"The new executive order doesn't change the legal authority for detention at all," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies. "It simply provides additional reviews for individuals who have been found by the habeas courts to be lawfully detained under the laws of war."
Under the order, each detainee will receive within a year a written, unclassified review of the factors that justify his continued incarceration. A government representative will be appointed to advocate on behalf of the detainees, who will have the right to hire private counsel, but not at the government's expense, the executive order says.
A Periodic Review Board, composed of military, intelligence, Homeland Security, State and Justice Department officials, will consider each case. A detainee will have the right to appear before the board, introduce his own evidence and call witnesses "who are reasonably available," the order says.
Each detainee will receive a full review before officials every three years, and a paper review every six months.
But David Remes, an attorney who represents 20 detainees, including 16 Yemenis, said he sees no substantive difference between the new system and the review process under the George W. Bush administration, just "a new cast of characters" sitting on review boards. In light of the current administration's decision not to release any Yemenis, even those cleared for repatriation, Remes questioned whether the new system will be valid.
"What good will this do for a Yemeni?" he said. The administration has said Yemen does not have the capacity to reintegrate and monitor any returned detainees.
Moreover, recent legislation now makes it extremely difficult to transfer any detainee out of Guantanamo Bay even if he is believed to be no threat, and it is unclear how the administration will confront that congressional barrier.
The administration said that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates will issue an order rescinding the suspension of new military commission cases.
The administration is expected to charge three detainees: Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Yemeni accused of planning the October 2000 al-Qaeda attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 American sailors; Obaidullah, an Afghan accused of storing anti-tank mines; and Ahmed Darbi, a Saudi accused of planning an attack on a ship in the Strait of Hormuz that never took place.
But the case against Guantanamo Bay's most prominent detainee, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, remains in limbo. The administration had planned to Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and four co-defendants on trial in New York. But intense political and public opposition scuttled the prosecution and it is unclear where - or whether - Mohammed will be tried.
"Unfortunately, some in Congress have unwisely sought to undermine this process by imposing restrictions that challenge the Executive Branch's ability to bring to justice terrorists who seek to do Americans harm," Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement Monday. "We oppose those restrictions, and will continue to seek their repeal."
Didnt this guy promise to close Guantanamo?
Didnt this guy promise to adhere to the constitution?
Guess it was all a lie.
Because no other President has in our history has EVER broken the constitution, right?
Oh wait....
Something I always agreed with from Thomas Jefferson,
"The constitution should have had an expiration date." He coined "Tyranny of Generations" for a reason. He feared that due to a lack of expiration date on the constitution, future generations would have to obey an Archaic document that would not help solve their problems, since the constitution was made specially to solve their problems at that specific time. And by recent events from the past 100 years, I would think he was right.
Constitution is going to be broken by whatever any president does at the present or future. And maybe its not a totally evil thing now.
I can't tell where you fall on the political spectrum. o_O
I mean at times I feel that you advocate for social change, yet are completely irrational with your expectations of the current government. Even more so, you bash Obama every single chance you get, to an unreasonable level. Plus, you have to remember that he's a politician, not a hero. He has to make his moves carefully in order to let him have better chances at the next election.
Yes he promised to close down Guantanamo, but it's more complicated than that isn't it? You have to send the prisoners somewhere else fist of all, and from what I heard, most state prisons don't want anything to do with the Guantanamo inmates.
Erich Wrote:What part do people not get that change takes time?
Just have to start here since the question was asked. You are right, change does take time. That said Obama is well past the half way mark on his first and hopefully last term and the only thing he has changed is the national debt. His administration has created not only the highest debt in our history but the highest debt of all our presidents combined. If that wasnt enough, his proposals if passed would only serve to increase that debt to an even more unmanagable amount.
Tigeon Wrote:Because no other President has in our history has EVER broken the constitution, right?
Something I always agreed with from Thomas Jefferson,
"The constitution should have had an expiration date." He coined "Tyranny of Generations" for a reason. He feared that due to a lack of expiration date on the constitution, future generations would have to obey an Archaic document that would not help solve their problems, since the constitution was made specially to solve their problems at that specific time. And by recent events from the past 100 years, I would think he was right.
While you are right in saying that other presidents have gone against the constitution, no other president has done so to the degree that Obama has. He is far more hurtful to this country than he is good for it. Most everything he has had pushed through the houses while the dems controlled them both were very much unconstitutional and even more to the point even the courts have stated that on several occations. Now should the constitution have an expiration date? No. That is why we can ammend the document as long as we dont change the principles that it stands for.
CommanderJinn Wrote:I mean at times I feel that you advocate for social change, yet are completely irrational with your expectations of the current government. Even more so, you bash Obama every single chance you get, to an unreasonable level. Plus, you have to remember that he's a politician, not a hero. He has to make his moves carefully in order to let him have better chances at the next election.
Yes he promised to close down Guantanamo, but it's more complicated than that isn't it? You have to send the prisoners somewhere else fist of all, and from what I heard, most state prisons don't want anything to do with the Guantanamo inmates.
The reason that Obama gets bashed is simple. He has done nothing but try to destroy this nation with the reckless spending and rediculous bills he has pushed through both houses. Given the choice between liberty and tyranny, I will go with liberty every time. Does Guantanamo need to be shut down? No. However, it does need judicial oversight and that is what it is lacking. The problem I have is that we are applying the laws of war but only when it suits us and even more to the point, why apply those laws since no official declaration of war has been made. Those people have no rights other than the ones given to them by whatever country they are from. If we dont have any evidence then let them go. Its that simple.
kanevaldier Wrote:Just have to start here since the question was asked. You are right, change does take time. That said Obama is well past the half way mark on his first and hopefully last term and the only thing he has changed is the national debt. His administration has created not only the highest debt in our history but the highest debt of all our presidents combined. If that wasnt enough, his proposals if passed would only serve to increase that debt to an even more unmanagable amount.
While you are right in saying that other presidents have gone against the constitution, no other president has done so to the degree that Obama has. He is far more hurtful to this country than he is good for it. Most everything he has had pushed through the houses while the dems controlled them both were very much unconstitutional and even more to the point even the courts have stated that on several occations. Now should the constitution have an expiration date? No. That is why we can ammend the document as long as we dont change the principles that it stands for.
Just have to say that the highest debt is caused because of past presidents and interest rates. Looking at here (yeah I know it's Wikipedia, just look at the sources they cited), Obama only created a 3.53 * 10^12 debt. Reagan created a 2.23*10^12 debt (albeit in 8 years). Now, you're probably like "wtp Reagan pulled a lower debt you idiot" but keep in mind the huge interest rates that is higher when the debt is higher.
Also, Bush created a 4.35 * 10^12 interest rate, although I do have to admit it was in 8 years, but the only reason Obama created the highest debt because he is the most newest President. Besides, Reagan and Bush were both Republicans-they dislike deficit spending. It's surprising that they like laissez fair yet have such huge debts.
And while you probably are exaggerating, there's a helluva lot more Presidents who broke the Constitution (or at least more laws) more than Obama did. Nixon, Johnson, Clinton...and even this one article here says Bush broke the Constitution, ha ha).
And about his reckless spending...laissez-faire economics, from time and time again, didn't really work. Didn't work in the 1920s, and while it could've helped the economy in the 1980s, Reagan kinda screwed that up. Deficit spending (arguably) worked after the Great Depression, so that's probably why Obama is trying it out. He probably won't change methods as he is a Democrat.
Corn Wrote:Just have to say that the highest debt is caused because of past presidents and interest rates. Looking at here (yeah I know it's Wikipedia, just look at the sources they cited), Obama only created a 3.53 * 10^12 debt. Reagan created a 2.23*10^12 debt (albeit in 8 years). Now, you're probably like "wtp Reagan pulled a lower debt you idiot" but keep in mind the huge interest rates that is higher when the debt is higher.
Also, Bush created a 4.35 * 10^12 interest rate, although I do have to admit it was in 8 years, but the only reason Obama created the highest debt because he is the most newest President. Besides, Reagan and Bush were both Republicans-they dislike deficit spending. It's surprising that they like laissez fair yet have such huge debts.
And while you probably are exaggerating, there's a helluva lot more Presidents who broke the Constitution (or at least more laws) more than Obama did. Nixon, Johnson, Clinton...and even this one article here says Bush broke the Constitution, ha ha).
And about his reckless spending...laissez-faire economics, from time and time again, didn't really work. Didn't work in the 1920s, and while it could've helped the economy in the 1980s, Reagan kinda screwed that up. Deficit spending (arguably) worked after the Great Depression, so that's probably why Obama is trying it out. He probably won't change methods as he is a Democrat.
Ok, let look at the numbers here. I looked at your link and as expected, the wiki is not accurate. No offense intended, but wikipedia is not really all that reputable. Anyone can put info on there regardless to its accuracy. So after that I decided to go to the treasury department web site and look up the actual figures. For the sake of saving space I rounded the numbers.
Current president Obama: Started term with a $10.6 trillion debt and in just 2 long years we sit at $14.2 trillion in debt. Thats a $3.6 trillion increase in only 2 years so if the trend continues we can be looking at a $17.8 trillion debt by 2012. That figure can potentially be higher if obama care is not stopped by the way.
Former president Bush Jr.: Started term with a $5.8 trillion debt and in just 8 years ended his run with $10.6 trillion debt. That a gain of only $4.8 trillion over the course of 8 years. So for argument sake in only 2 years time Obama has almost done what Bush took 8 years to do.
I wont even bother to bring it back as far as Reagan since the Bush comparison is good enough.
On to the constitution. As I stated, yes there have been several presidents who broke the constitution to propagate their agendas. That said, Obama was the only one of them who publicly stated to do certain things in order to fix this country and then as soon as he had the chance did a 180 degree flip. Sure all polaticians lie to some degree but most of them at least try to make it look good by doing some of what they said they would do. Obama had his way during the first 2 years he was in office and could have made good on something, but instead he gave everyone the middle finger. Now he no longer has the ability to force feed us because he no longer controls 1 of the 2 houses of congress. Bottom line is that he is great at one thing besides reading from the telepromter, lying.
2011-03-09, 12:37 PM (This post was last modified: 2011-03-09, 02:08 PM by Anonymous Moose.)
Other previous presidents breaking the constitution does not justify breaking it now (and it didnt justify breaking it back then either). If I went out and killed someone and I got away with it, does that mean its perfectly fine for someone else to murder? it does not. Using the "well he did it too" excuse is no less than childish.
People need to realize that the constitution is a Law, and the highest one in the nation, and it is the reason any of us have rights - its the only thing separating us from a tyranny. Its sad that so many people freely attack the source of our freedoms.
Regarding the Thomas Jefferson quote, please verify that it is real. The only site that has it is this one according to google: http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/archi...641-3.html
And speaking of expiration dates, the Patriot Act had one, but both Obama and Bush refused to respect that and constantly extended it.
Quote:I can't tell where you fall on the political spectrum. o_O
Because I dont fall within the Right-Left Paradigm. I only advocate freedom.
And I am not irrational about my expectations. I expect Obama, like Bush and other presidents before him, to work towards destroying out freedoms. So far, that is exactly what is going on. Apparently, you cant even turn your back to a polititian these days without being assaulted.
Too many people view the world as black and white, but its more than just two sides and a few in the middle. There are several dimensions.
Quote:What part do people not get that change takes time?
Change takes time, but that isnt the only factor that is important.
Is change occuring? If so, is it good or bad? How fast is this change occuring? Etc.
So far, change is occuring, but it isnt the type of change that is good. For the topic at hand, Obama is expanding upon Bush's detention policies (that candidate Obama opposed), and I dont believe this is a good change. Not only have we been lied to by Obama (not the first time either), but he pulled a complete 180, and is doing the opposite of what we expected him to do when many of us voted for him.
Although this isnt the topic, I will say that I have openly opposed Bush. The only reason I'm not talking a lot about him is the fact that he no longer is in office.
Regarding free market economics, the free market did not fail. It was the economic policies of several of our past presidents and changing the laws to be more favourable to only certain groups. One of those groups is banks. For example, glass steagall (a law, interestingly enough, that was meant to prevent a 2nd great depression) was repealed under Clinton's administration, and it lead to the economic ressession of today. It also lead to the bailout where the banks (again) received trillions in tax payer dollars for failing.
If we would have had a real free market, these businesses would fail, and newer businesses would simply take their place. Instead congress was fearmongered into paying off the bankers and rewarding failure at the cost of our money.
Anonymous Moose Wrote:Other previous presidents breaking the constitution does not justify breaking it now (and it didnt justify breaking it back then either). If I went out and killed someone and I got away with it, does that mean its perfectly fine for someone else to murder? it does not. Using the "well he did it too" excuse is no less than childish.
People need to realize that the constitution is a Law, and the highest one in the nation, and it is the reason any of us have rights - its the only thing separating us from a tyranny. Its sad that so many people freely attack the source of our freedoms.
Regarding the Thomas Jefferson quote, please verify that it is real. The only site that has it is this one according to google: http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/archi...641-3.html
And speaking of expiration dates, the Patriot Act had one, but both Obama and Bush refused to respect that and constantly extended it.
Sorry, I paraphrased it so much that you couldn't properly find it on google. Heres the whole line:
"As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors" This was said in Jefferson's letter to Samuel Kercheval.
And I'll clarify what I mean. I said I believe the constituion should have had an expiration date, because things change. What mattered to the framers could be totally different of how things are right now. Also would like a total revision of the document since theres some obvious gaps that need filling the framers left wide open for corruption. Just to name very blatent ones
>War Power Act: Oh god, what the hell were the leglaslative branch thinking when they were making this policy? Oh wait, they were think of making Nixon look bad by overriding his VETO. Now the president can pretty much go to war for 90 days without any restraint from congress. GG checks of balance, GG
> Judical branch in the constituion. Seriously, this is the part that was left till the end and never got finished. In the whole document there are three lines for the judicial branch. First line saying that Supreme Court would be a good idea. Second saying that Judges pay can never be cut, they can't be fired, and they got tenure for life. Third that the legislation branch can pick up the pieces from there and take care of it, dictating any number of courts, supreme court justices, or anything else regarding the branch itself. Founders, if your going to devise a system, at least devote . a page or something, don't include just 3 sentences and say someone else should do the work.
Our rights? Namely those came from the bill of rights, which was after the constitution got made. And it was only made because the Anti-federalists sent such an uproar that it would have destroyed the nation before it could heal itself. Nation already had to deal with Shay's Rebellion. Embarrassed from that event due to proving Britain was right about us...I can understand why George Washington called us a disgrace as a nation.
And if attacking the constitution is wrong, I don't want to be right. I can advocate change as long as I don't try to force people into thinking my way. Your free to ignore my statements as I am free to advocate mine and ignore yours.
Tigeon Wrote:And I'll clarify what I mean. I said I believe the constituion should have had an expiration date, because things change. What mattered to the framers could be totally different of how things are right now. Also would like a total revision of the document since theres some obvious gaps that need filling the framers left wide open for corruption. Just to name very blatent ones
>War Power Act: Oh god, what the hell were the leglaslative branch thinking when they were making this policy? Oh wait, they were think of making Nixon look bad by overriding his VETO. Now the president can pretty much go to war for 90 days without any restraint from congress. GG checks of balance, GG
> Judical branch in the constituion. Seriously, this is the part that was left till the end and never got finished. In the whole document there are three lines for the judicial branch. First line saying that Supreme Court would be a good idea. Second saying that Judges pay can never be cut, they can't be fired, and they got tenure for life. Third that the legislation branch can pick up the pieces from there and take care of it, dictating any number of courts, supreme court justices, or anything else regarding the branch itself. Founders, if your going to devise a system, at least devote . a page or something, don't include just 3 sentences and say someone else should do the work.
Our rights? Namely those came from the bill of rights, which was after the constitution got made. And it was only made because the Anti-federalists sent such an uproar that it would have destroyed the nation before it could heal itself. Nation already had to deal with Shay's Rebellion. Embarrassed from that event due to proving Britain was right about us...I can understand why George Washington called us a disgrace as a nation.
And if attacking the constitution is wrong, I don't want to be right. I can advocate change as long as I don't try to force people into thinking my way. Your free to ignore my statements as I am free to advocate mine and ignore yours.
Ok, so I feel it is needed here. The Bill of Rights was made due to unrest from the states as they felt that the constitution as it was writen would create a strong centralized government that would turn to tyranny. But I do believe that you have not really read both documents at least not in its entirety. First, the bill of rights is an extention of the constitution. Both documents go hand in hand and can not be seperated. You stated that the judicial branch only has three lines and it isnt mentioned till the end, that simply is incorrect. Artical III of the constitution states the judicial powers and that is right smack in the middle of the constitution. Also, that artical is 3 sections long and has a lot more than just 3 lines and is quite a long way from "unfinished". By the way, the constitution is 4 pages long and artical III falls on page 3. While the judicial branch does not have quite as much in it as the legislative and executive branches do, it does not make it any less powerful or meaningful.
Attacking the constitution also means attacking the bill of rights and thus attacking the very rights you claim to have.
As for the war power act, this I also see that you failed to read entirely. The president has the ability to send troops into action for only 60 days and can extend that for another 30 days but he must provide congress with proof for the reason of doing so. Congress ultimately has the power to remove said troops from said location at will.
kanevaldier Wrote:Ok, let look at the numbers here. I looked at your link and as expected, the wiki is not accurate. No offense intended, but wikipedia is not really all that reputable. Anyone can put info on there regardless to its accuracy. So after that I decided to go to the treasury department web site and look up the actual figures. For the sake of saving space I rounded the numbers.
Current president Obama: Started term with a $10.6 trillion debt and in just 2 long years we sit at $14.2 trillion in debt. Thats a $3.6 trillion increase in only 2 years so if the trend continues we can be looking at a $17.8 trillion debt by 2012. That figure can potentially be higher if obama care is not stopped by the way.
Former president Bush Jr.: Started term with a $5.8 trillion debt and in just 8 years ended his run with $10.6 trillion debt. That a gain of only $4.8 trillion over the course of 8 years. So for argument sake in only 2 years time Obama has almost done what Bush took 8 years to do.
I wont even bother to bring it back as far as Reagan since the Bush comparison is good enough.
On to the constitution. As I stated, yes there have been several presidents who broke the constitution to propagate their agendas. That said, Obama was the only one of them who publicly stated to do certain things in order to fix this country and then as soon as he had the chance did a 180 degree flip. Sure all polaticians lie to some degree but most of them at least try to make it look good by doing some of what they said they would do. Obama had his way during the first 2 years he was in office and could have made good on something, but instead he gave everyone the middle finger. Now he no longer has the ability to force feed us because he no longer controls 1 of the 2 houses of congress. Bottom line is that he is great at one thing besides reading from the telepromter, lying.
I know that Wikipedia is not that reliable (mentioned it in by post, in fact). I was just too lazy to scroll down 3-4 url links (thanks for the better source by the way), but thanks for the better treasury link.
And damn, I'm going to have to pull this card. I'm abandoning my previous arguement.
Despite the huge debt we have, it's really not a problem for the U.S. Yet anyways. Our GDP is still higher than the national debt, so we're still in the clear. In fact, looking at the ratio of debt to GDP, we're doing better than the 1940s. Unlike, say, poor Greece which is screwing itself over, the U.S. is the richest country in the world. The debt won't implode on us soon. If you want to read more look here.
And how the hell did we start talking about debts in this thread?
________
Constitution: Ya realize the great man FDR was accused of breaking the Constitution for his New Deal, right? And Obama was not the only President to have publicly stated to do certain things in order to fix the country. Thomas Jefferson did the complete opposite of nearly every one of his promises. Johnson did the opposite of what he was hired to do so (but he was impeached anyways, but he screwed us over for a bit in Reconstruction). And on the Obama meter he kept much more promises than broke them.
Anonymous Moose Wrote:Other previous presidents breaking the constitution does not justify breaking it now (and it didnt justify breaking it back then either). If I went out and killed someone and I got away with it, does that mean its perfectly fine for someone else to murder? it does not. Using the "well he did it too" excuse is no less than childish.
People need to realize that the constitution is a Law, and the highest one in the nation, and it is the reason any of us have rights - its the only thing separating us from a tyranny. Its sad that so many people freely attack the source of our freedoms.
Regarding the Thomas Jefferson quote, please verify that it is real. The only site that has it is this one according to google: http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/archi...641-3.html
And speaking of expiration dates, the Patriot Act had one, but both Obama and Bush refused to respect that and constantly extended it.
Because I dont fall within the Right-Left Paradigm. I only advocate freedom.
And I am not irrational about my expectations. I expect Obama, like Bush and other presidents before him, to work towards destroying out freedoms. So far, that is exactly what is going on. Apparently, you cant even turn your back to a polititian these days without being assaulted.
Too many people view the world as black and white, but its more than just two sides and a few in the middle. There are several dimensions.
Change takes time, but that isnt the only factor that is important.
Is change occuring? If so, is it good or bad? How fast is this change occuring? Etc.
So far, change is occuring, but it isnt the type of change that is good. For the topic at hand, Obama is expanding upon Bush's detention policies (that candidate Obama opposed), and I dont believe this is a good change. Not only have we been lied to by Obama (not the first time either), but he pulled a complete 180, and is doing the opposite of what we expected him to do when many of us voted for him.
Although this isnt the topic, I will say that I have openly opposed Bush. The only reason I'm not talking a lot about him is the fact that he no longer is in office.
Regarding free market economics, the free market did not fail. It was the economic policies of several of our past presidents and changing the laws to be more favourable to only certain groups. One of those groups is banks. For example, glass steagall (a law, interestingly enough, that was meant to prevent a 2nd great depression) was repealed under Clinton's administration, and it lead to the economic ressession of today. It also lead to the bailout where the banks (again) received trillions in tax payer dollars for failing.
If we would have had a real free market, these businesses would fail, and newer businesses would simply take their place. Instead congress was fearmongered into paying off the bankers and rewarding failure at the cost of our money.
Oops, I was hoping you wouldn't notice the list of crappy Presidents I posted, but I'm a bit rusty on my APUSH stuff so I couldn't remember all of the Presidents. Anyways, read what I responded to.
While you are right in saying that other presidents have gone against the constitution, no other president has done so to the degree that Obama has.
I just provided that list to say that there are other Presidents that broke the Constitution worse than Obama did. I still don't exactly get how Obama is breaking the Constitution, either (don't bring the not a natural born citizen up). Raising the national debt is not breaking the Constitution.
And the free market...we will never know how well the real deal would do unless we test it out, but I still quite think that the pre-1900s free market failed (Thank god for Roosevelt and Taft), the 1920s free market failed (Great Depression derp) and the 1980s wasn't that bad, but Reagan did increase our debt a lot.
kanevaldier Wrote:Ok, so I feel it is needed here. The Bill of Rights was made due to unrest from the states as they felt that the constitution as it was writen would create a strong centralized government that would turn to tyranny. But I do believe that you have not really read both documents at least not in its entirety. First, the bill of rights is an extention of the constitution. Both documents go hand in hand and can not be seperated. You stated that the judicial branch only has three lines and it isnt mentioned till the end, that simply is incorrect. Artical III of the constitution states the judicial powers and that is right smack in the middle of the constitution. Also, that artical is 3 sections long and has a lot more than just 3 lines and is quite a long way from "unfinished". By the way, the constitution is 4 pages long and artical III falls on page 3. While the judicial branch does not have quite as much in it as the legislative and executive branches do, it does not make it any less powerful or meaningful.
Attacking the constitution also means attacking the bill of rights and thus attacking the very rights you claim to have.
As for the war power act, this I also see that you failed to read entirely. The president has the ability to send troops into action for only 60 days and can extend that for another 30 days but he must provide congress with proof for the reason of doing so. Congress ultimately has the power to remove said troops from said location at will.
I will awknowledge that I might be wrong about the judical branch only have 3 lines. But it is still far from complete. And if I attack the constitution by saying that, then I will continue to do so.
And for the war powers act, I do not think your realizing how much damage can be caused in those 60 days. A president can essential pretty says on the 59th day"Oh sorry for not telling you guys, but I didn't have the time" A few very quick examples:
Operation Eagle Claw: Very very bad blunder we made of trying to use our special forces on a fail rescue mission....
Also, we went to war with several small countries, not because they were evil or corrupt, but because whenever we 'win' a war, it makes the president look all the much better. Believe reagan got us into around 4 wars just by using the WPA.
The WPA is one of the biggest blunders the leglastive has made in its history. Some of the recent ones these past few years might beat it in the record books, but as of now I and several other people would agree, the WPA is a big misuse of power the president can use in a legal way.
Corn Wrote:I know that Wikipedia is not that reliable (mentioned it in by post, in fact). I was just too lazy to scroll down 3-4 url links (thanks for the better source by the way), but thanks for the better treasury link.
And damn, I'm going to have to pull this card. I'm abandoning my previous arguement.
Despite the huge debt we have, it's really not a problem for the U.S. Yet anyways. Our GDP is still higher than the national debt, so we're still in the clear. In fact, looking at the ratio of debt to GDP, we're doing better than the 1940s. Unlike, say, poor Greece which is screwing itself over, the U.S. is the richest country in the world. The debt won't implode on us soon. If you want to read more look here.
And how the hell did we start talking about debts in this thread?
________
Constitution: Ya realize the great man FDR was accused of breaking the Constitution for his New Deal, right? And Obama was not the only President to have publicly stated to do certain things in order to fix the country. Thomas Jefferson did the complete opposite of nearly every one of his promises. Johnson did the opposite of what he was hired to do so (but he was impeached anyways, but he screwed us over for a bit in Reconstruction). And on the Obama meter he kept much more promises than broke them.
Oops, I was hoping you wouldn't notice the list of crappy Presidents I posted, but I'm a bit rusty on my APUSH stuff so I couldn't remember all of the Presidents. Anyways, read what I responded to.
While you are right in saying that other presidents have gone against the constitution, no other president has done so to the degree that Obama has.
I just provided that list to say that there are other Presidents that broke the Constitution worse than Obama did. I still don't exactly get how Obama is breaking the Constitution, either (don't bring the not a natural born citizen up). Raising the national debt is not breaking the Constitution.
And the free market...we will never know how well the real deal would do unless we test it out, but I still quite think that the pre-1900s free market failed (Thank god for Roosevelt and Taft), the 1920s free market failed (Great Depression derp) and the 1980s wasn't that bad, but Reagan did increase our debt a lot.
If you paid attention to Obama's actions, you'd see that he continues torture in guantanimo (unconstitutional), continues Bush's unconstitutional wars, continues to use signing statements (it was unconstitutional when Bush did it), and Obamacare has been ruled several times to be unconstitutional.
Regarding the great depression, it wasnt caused by the free market. It was caused by Banks performing shady deals, just like they are performing today after Clinton repealed the Glass Steagall act.
And the New Deal solved nothing. It was entering WWII that jumpstarted our economy out of the Great Depression.
Are you related to one of the founding fathers or something? What's the deal with you calling everything you don't like unconstitutional? As I'm not an american, I don't know much about the constitution, but I've asked several people about it and your posts and they all responded along the lines of 'he doesn't seem to know what that word means.'
Sarah Wrote:Are you related to one of the founding fathers or something? What's the deal with you calling everything you don't like unconstitutional? As I'm not an american, I don't know much about the constitution, but I've asked several people about it and your posts and they all responded along the lines of 'he doesn't seem to know what that word means.'
Unconstitutional means anything that violates any part of the constitution/bill of rights. He does know what it means and I would venture to say that those people you asked probably dont really know much about the constitution or the bill of rights. I am well versed in both documents myself as I have studied them in detail. The problem is that most people dont know what is said and even more to the point dont understand what is being said.
Hope that helps you. If not, PM me and I will be happy to explain whatever you dont understand in more detail.
This is why I'm glad New Zealand has no supreme document and parliament can change anything with a 51% majority (75% in a very few cases). Sure it may open us to some danger, but at least it gets rid of whiners.
kanevaldier Wrote:Unconstitutional means anything that violates any part of the constitution/bill of rights. He does know what it means
Ha, he understands it like the Republican congressmen understand it - a useful way of avoiding explaining the grounds for your opinion.
Unless he starts posting specific sections and quotes from the Constitution, I'll continue to believe that he uses "unconstitutional" as a synonym for "bad", and nothing more. It's not a huge document - and very little is applicable to the President's actions. Shouldn't be hard for him to be more specific.
People who cling to the constuition are people who are unable to move forward and see beyond it. If our founding fathers were placed in the circumstances today, I gurrantee it would be much more different. It should no longer simply be the foundation of our government simply because we cannot support the type of government it wants to support. It wanted representative democracy, which, we no longer are. We have evolved into a republic, and we Americans are too proud and naive to see that our constuition should adhear to that.
All we wanted was representation and equality, where people who worked hard enough got oppurtunity. Not in todays day in age, you work hard but they can't reward, knowing the right people is more beneficial. We can reflect all that we wanted too originally, but we need to update it, the end. I don't find it fair that someone who bought a house on a shady deal should be able to live in it even though they can't pay off the house payment. That they get these cuts, tax credits, and essentially finacial pity so they can keep their mansion. What about me who can make his house payment off? Someon who works, and is finacially responsible? Wheres my fucking cut. Stupid pomegranate like that shouldn't be flying, yet it's our "Bill of rights" that makes us want to pity that family and give them the oppurtunity to live in a goddam mansion.
Stereo Wrote:Ha, he understands it like the Republican congressmen understand it - a useful way of avoiding explaining the grounds for your opinion.
Unless he starts posting specific sections and quotes from the Constitution, I'll continue to believe that he uses "unconstitutional" as a synonym for "bad", and nothing more. It's not a huge document - and very little is applicable to the President's actions. Shouldn't be hard for him to be more specific.
Republican? You do realize both parties do their damnedest to completely ignore the constitution right? They only bring it up to put on a show, like how Obama lied about respecting the document.
And that is your choice to completely ignore the document which gives you your rights, and you're choice to ignore the fact that I have posted portions of the constitution in the past and have posted articles detailing court rulings.
Quote:and very little is applicable to the President's actions
How is the document which defines all the powers, requirments, and limnitations of the president not applicable?
