REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

One cannot break the law, when one is above it.

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 9, 2006 21:04
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2982
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 3:17 PM

CHRISISALL


Who here thinks the President- any President- is above the law?
Who thinks the prez should be as answerable to the laws of the land as any other citizen?
Who sees a necessary blurring of the two?

Curious Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 3:24 PM

SAINTANDEOL


yeah, i kinda thought the whole point of having the Law is that it applies to everyone. otherwise, it becomes a completely different concept in direct conflict with the definition we give it.

"I'd be totally hacked if Stimutacs wasn't so . . ."
"Outrageously chill?"
"Word."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 3:31 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important



Good question.

I think the President should be subject to the law just as any other citizen, with four exceptions:

1) Diplomatic Immunity while in other countries. Because the president serves diplomatic functions, he should be entitled to the same immunities.

2) Immunity from Misdemeanors and Petty offenses. Otherwise his political enemies could arrange for him to be constantly tied up with Jaywalking, Littering, and Speeding charges.

3) Legal authority to use any force necessary to defend his life. He shouldn't have to run and hide behind a shrub (as is the case with the self-defense laws in many states.) Rather, he and his security escort should be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to stop an attacker, without regard to being forced to moderate and measure the force used. If you try to harm the president, you should expect to be severely maimed or killed during attempts to stop you.

4) Legal immunity for 'crimes' committed against foreign nations/people while in office. This will keep him from facing thousands of murder charges if he decides to mobilize troops somewhere in the world to accomplish X goal. It's assumed a President will inevitably mobilize troops and attack somebody sometime, and while this could constitute murder in a strict legal sense, we expect our President to have that power and exercise it from time to time. If we don't like how he uses his executive powers, he should be impeached and tossed out of office. I do not think that he should have the same immunity for crimes committed on US soil, though. I can think of few good reasons for him to mobilize troops to take out Topeka Kansas. If it's a policing operation, the troops should follow police procedure, and not just gun down or bomb the general population.

Anyhow, that's my opinion on how much the President should be legally liable.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 3:45 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:


3) Legal authority to use any force necessary to defend his life. He shouldn't have to run and hide behind a shrub (as is the case with the self-defense laws in many states.) Rather, he and his security escort should be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to stop an attacker, without regard to being forced to moderate and measure the force used.

Now that you mention it, why is it acceptable for the President's defense (which I agree with), but not for the common citizen?
Ahhh, because his life is more valuable, him being *Coughrich* the President and all...



OJ was also allowed to use excessive force to teach his wife a lesson, it ain't political, it's economic Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 3:54 PM

EVILDINOSAUR


no one is above the law, especially the president

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 3:54 PM

EVILDINOSAUR


no one is above the law, especially the president

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 3:54 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Good question.

I think the President should be subject to the law just as any other citizen, with four exceptions:

1) Diplomatic Immunity while in other countries. Because the president serves diplomatic functions, he should be entitled to the same immunities.

2) Immunity from Misdemeanors and Petty offenses. Otherwise his political enemies could arrange for him to be constantly tied up with Jaywalking, Littering, and Speeding charges.

3) Legal authority to use any force necessary to defend his life. He shouldn't have to run and hide behind a shrub (as is the case with the self-defense laws in many states.) Rather, he and his security escort should be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to stop an attacker, without regard to being forced to moderate and measure the force used. If you try to harm the president, you should expect to be severely maimed or killed during attempts to stop you.

4) Legal immunity for 'crimes' committed against foreign nations/people while in office. This will keep him from facing thousands of murder charges if he decides to mobilize troops somewhere in the world to accomplish X goal. It's assumed a President will inevitably mobilize troops and attack somebody sometime, and while this could constitute murder in a strict legal sense, we expect our President to have that power and exercise it from time to time. If we don't like how he uses his executive powers, he should be impeached and tossed out of office. I do not think that he should have the same immunity for crimes committed on US soil, though. I can think of few good reasons for him to mobilize troops to take out Topeka Kansas. If it's a policing operation, the troops should follow police procedure, and not just gun down or bomb the general population.

Anyhow, that's my opinion on how much the President should be legally liable.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner




You make some interesting points, but should these
be applicable to all heads of state... even the ones which do not enjoy the favour of the US ?

And I for one would argue that diplomatic immunity
should not apply when charged by the ICC...



" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 3:59 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


To be entirely honest, I think the self defense laws in most states are rediculous. But since the people disagree with me, let's at least protect the President.

When I got my Concealed weapons permit in Florida, there was (of course) a required class on legal use of force. I learned that if someone was attacking me, and I had the physical ability to attempt evasion, I was REQUIRED by law to run and try to hide behind something.

Moreover, if I was being beat up, and I whipped out my knife and eviscerated my attacker, I could be brought up on charges.

I think that's just silly. But either the majority or the vocal minority decided that's how it was going to be.

Since then, incidentally, the defense laws in Florida have changed a bit. You are now allowed to stand and defend yourself. But many other states still require you to flee and evade until you are physically incapable of it. And of course, many states don't let you use a weapon in self defense.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 4:23 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


What's fun here is defining "the law". In the USA for example, just because the Congress passes a law and the President signs it, that doesn't make it a valid law. The Judiciary can declare in Unconstitutional if they find that it violates their interpretation of the Constitution. For instance, the Congress could pass legislation, and the President either sign it or veto and the veto be overturned, that all left-handed red-heads no longer have the right to vote. The Judiciary at the highest level (Supreme Court) could declare this legislation Unconstitutional, and that would end the matter, unless a Constitutional Amendment was passed.

Checks and balances. Gotta love it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 4:38 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Well, sort of.

My understanding is that the Supreme Court doesn't get involved until there is a court case where the law is challenged.

Unconstitutional laws can circulate and be enforced for years or decades because of this.

It would be nice if all new laws that Congress passed had to be vetted by the Supreme Court before they could be enacted.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 4:55 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It would be nice if all new laws that Congress passed had to be vetted by the Supreme Court before they could be enacted.

No. It wouldn’t. That would make us an Oligarchy, wouldn’t it? Which aren’t typically considered very liberal governments.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 4:58 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


I'm not sure what an Oligarchy is...

But I do know that I want my laws checked for Constitutionality BEFORE they circulate for years.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 5:04 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
...The Judiciary at the highest level (Supreme Court) could declare this legislation Unconstitutional, and that would end the matter, unless a Constitutional Amendment was passed.

Checks and balances. Gotta love it.



Yup, and if we could get the Federal system working the way it's supposed to, ie real states rights, that balance might actually work.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 5:14 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm not sure what an Oligarchy is...

But I do know that I want my laws checked for Constitutionality BEFORE they circulate for years.

An Oligarchy is a government by a small council of aristocrats, unelected aristocrats, even. Not something I would support.

Also an interesting point is that your argument is, ironically, unconstitutional. Look up the landmark case Marbury v. Madison.

Contrary to popular theory and what we tell children in high school government classes, the Constitution does not define our system of government with three equal branches. It defines two equal branches, the Legislature and the Executive Office. The Judiciary is not defined in the Constitution as being equal in power to the other two branches, and was only intended by the Founding Fathers to arbiter disputes not to overturn democratic legislation.

In the case of Marbury v. Madison, in 1803 the Supreme Court usurped power equal to the other two branches when they rule that they could overrule the Legislature. The Founding Fathers never intended the Judiciary to vet democratic rule. The court seized that power. It is not given to them in the Constitution.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 6:27 PM

JOSSISAGOD


1. I don't know how other political offices are run in other countries, It's not my business to know. however I believe that no U.S. president should be above the law. Nixon wasn't, Clinton wasn't, So why should Bush Jr. be any different!

2.I do! For the reasons stated above as well as the one I'm about to state. The United States' laws where put into place so that NO ONE got special treatment not the middle class citizens, not the Celebrities, not even the President!

3. I do not believe there is a blurring, I see things in black and white according to the constitutional laws set up when the U.S. constitution was written. I don't believe they can be toyed with and re-written just because some one(Democrat OR Republican) wants more power to do what in my mind is against the constitution. I'm refering mostly to Bush's proposed warrentless wire tapping program.
Quote:

Quote from msnbc.com
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a conservative Republican, called that argument "very dangerous in terms of its application to the future. When I voted for it, I never envisioned that I was giving to this president or any other president the ability to go around FISA carte blanche."



Here's the link if anyone wants to flame me: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11300384/site/newsweek/

JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 9:20 PM

VINTERDRAKEN


No one should stand above the law. If people can be placed outside the lawsystem, why then bother to have one.

You can’t stop the Signal.
Keep spreading the word about Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 9:20 PM

VINTERDRAKEN


No one should stand above the law. If people can be placed outside the lawsystem, why then bother to have one.

You can’t stop the Signal.
Keep spreading the word about Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 9:20 PM

VINTERDRAKEN


No one should stand above the law. If people can be placed outside the lawsystem, why then bother to have one.

You can’t stop the Signal.
Keep spreading the word about Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 9:20 PM

VINTERDRAKEN


No one should stand above the law. If people can be placed outside the lawsystem, why then bother to have one.

You can’t stop the Signal.
Keep spreading the word about Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 9:20 PM

VINTERDRAKEN


No one should stand above the law. If people can be placed outside the lawsystem, why then bother to have one.

You can’t stop the Signal.
Keep spreading the word about Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 9:20 PM

VINTERDRAKEN


No one should stand above the law. If people can be placed outside the lawsystem, why then bother to have one.

You can’t stop the Signal.
Keep spreading the word about Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 1:55 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
An Oligarchy is a government by a small council of aristocrats, unelected aristocrats, even.


Not quite. Your thinking of an aristocracy.

The clue to what an Oligarchy is in the name, which in ancient Greek breaks down like this:
"few" (oligo) and "rule" (arkhos).

It's rule by the few. Yes an aristocracy is a -FORM- of Oligarchy, but it's not the whole story. An Oligarchy can be 'run' by any small group. Say you had a democratically elected government, but in the end corporations CEO's called the shots, but 'behind' the scenes that would be an Oligarchy.

Basically in an Oligarchy any small group can be 'in charge' and they don't necessarily have to be visible, they can also be the 'power behind the throne'.

I.e. PirateNews thinks we’re all living in an Oligarchy, the throne are our democratically elected governments, but the power behind that throne is the minority British-Commie-Nazi-Alien-Jews.

And as chief operative in charge of puppy mutilation for the British-Commie-Nazi-Alien-Jews I can confidently say:
“We don’t exist”



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 3:14 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
It's rule by the few. Yes an aristocracy is a -FORM- of Oligarchy, but it's not the whole story. An Oligarchy can be 'run' by any small group. Say you had a democratically elected government, but in the end corporations CEO's called the shots, but 'behind' the scenes that would be an Oligarchy.

Well, that’s exactly what AnthonyT is talking about, isn’t it? He’s saying that he thinks the Supreme Court (a small group) should vet Legislated law, which fits your definition: a small group of people calling the shots behind the scenes.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 3:25 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Good question.
4) Legal immunity for 'crimes' committed against foreign nations/people while in office. This will keep him from facing thousands of murder charges if he decides to mobilize troops somewhere in the world to accomplish X goal. It's assumed a President will inevitably mobilize troops and attack somebody sometime, and while this could constitute murder in a strict legal sense, we expect our President to have that power and exercise it from time to time. If we don't like how he uses his executive powers, he should be impeached and tossed out of office. I do not think that he should have the same immunity for crimes committed on US soil, though. I can think of few good reasons for him to mobilize troops to take out Topeka Kansas. If it's a policing operation, the troops should follow police procedure, and not just gun down or bomb the general population.

Anyhow, that's my opinion on how much the President should be legally liable.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner



If the President declares War, then he is not liable. If the President invades a country without the agreement of the UN? Well then isn't he violating the law? Isn't he the responsible for any attrocities?

Why should a President be above the law of the land he governs for the people BY the people?

Whatever happened to that quaint little notion - THE BUCK STOPS HERE?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 3:26 AM

CITIZEN


Not sure I see it actually. By having some say in whether laws are passed or not doesn't mean they get to decide exactly how they are enforced at all levels, nor do they make up they're own laws (well I don't think they do, do they?).

You'd want a few extra checks in for it to make sense, perhaps a limited veto to push some legislation through under certain limited circumstances.

In fact the way I understand the US Government the exectutive branch is a higer candidate. It's my understanding that they aren't elected, they're appointed by the President, and they make the decisions (yeah I know the elected president has the final say).



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 3:43 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Not sure I see it actually. By having some say in whether laws are passed or not doesn't mean they get to decide exactly how they are enforced at all levels, nor do they make up they're own laws (well I don't think they do, do they?).

That’s why I posted what I did on Marbury v Madison. Before people decide that this would be a good alternative, I want people to think about what it means for the Supreme Court to rule legislation as unconstitutional. Judges do make their own laws. It’s call Judicial Legislation. And if you gave the Supreme Court that much power, it wouldn’t be long before they were calling the shots.
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
In fact the way I understand the US Government the exectutive branch is a higer candidate. It's my understanding that they aren't elected, they're appointed by the President, and they make the decisions (yeah I know the elected president has the final say).

Yes the president does have veto power. That’s what makes the Executive Office equal to the Legislature. The Constitution does not give the power of veto to the Supreme Court, and the ability to veto a law after it is enacted is even more powerful then the Executive Branch.

Maybe Hero will chime in here. I’m sure he can explain this stuff much better then I can.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 3:46 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yes the president does have veto power. That’s what makes the Executive Office equal to the Legislature. The Constitution does not give the power of veto to the Supreme Court, and the ability to veto a law after it is enacted is even more powerful then the Executive Branch.

Maybe Hero will chime in here. I’m sure he can explain this stuff much better then I can.


That's not what I meant by Veto. I meant a limited power to push a bill through, like the parliment act over here.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 3:55 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
That's not what I meant by Veto. I meant a limited power to push a bill through, like the parliment act over here.

I don’t know about that. I’d have to look into it. I don’t think so, but I could be wrong. The only thing I can think of is that if there is a 50-50 split in the Senate then the VP becomes tie breaker. But I can’t think of any situation in which the Executive office could impose legislation.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 4:00 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t know about that. I’d have to look into it. I don’t think so, but I could be wrong. The only thing I can think of is that if there is a 50-50 split in the Senate then the VP becomes tie breaker. But I can’t think of any situation in which the Executive office could impose legislation.


It was in the theoretical case where the Judicery had a say in the law. Having a limited abillity to push through legislation based on a majority of the branchs would seem to make sense.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 4:20 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Who here thinks the President- any President- is above the law?


Depends on the law.

If the President is driving his car through my City and is speeding or drunk, then he will be prosecuted like anyone else (especially PirateNews). If the City decides to pass a special income tax on federal employees...like the President, then he would not have to pay. If the President moved to my City then he would have to pay property taxes and obey zoning laws. If the City passed a law making it crime for the President to make a treaty with Madagascar, then he would not have to obey. If the President negligently discharged a firearm into a friends face giving him minor injuries, he would be charged with a local misdemeanor...if he intentionally discharged a firearm into a foriegn invader on City property and in violation of specific City laws, then he would not be subject to prosecution.

Laws are complicated. What you really want to be talking about is jurisdiction. If there is no jurisdiction, then the President does not have to obey. Same way I don't have to obey Pennsylvania's DUI laws (unless I'm in PA at the time).

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 5:21 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

If the President is driving his car through my City and is speeding or drunk, then he will be prosecuted like anyone else

What if he is hunting drunk, and discharges his weapon in an unsafe manner injuring a fellow hunter? How to prosecute him when he has himself wisked away by men in black to a protected location to sober up? Your pitiful and weak laws can only be enforced on the pitiful and weak (economically) citizens.

Response?

Ha! I thought not, I found the crack in your belief system!

Chrisisall, pulling the chain on Hero's argument

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 5:33 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
What if he is hunting drunk, and discharges his weapon in an unsafe manner injuring a fellow hunter? How to prosecute him when he has himself wisked away by men in black to a protected location to sober up?


That would never happen. If it did and I could prove it, I'd charge the agents with Obstruction.

Your talking about the VP's situation. There is no evidence he was drunk and no evidence that anyone covered anything up. There was also a plausable explanation supported by all the witnesses and the victim. Given those circumstances there was nothing to charge Cheney with. Sure, you can question the motives of those involved to lie and cover up, but there is simply no evidence to the contrary. Last night someone was murdered in Cleveland. Did you do it? There is no evidence, no witnesses, and you have an alibi. Guilty. Where'd I hide that needle...

Prosecutors are not supposed to charge people with crimes when there is no evidence. Thats an Ohio rule...its different in other places (Russia, Iran, North Carolina, etc).

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 5:42 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

Your talking about the VP's situation. There is no evidence he was drunk and no evidence that anyone covered anything up.

OF COURSE THERE ISN'T!!! THAT'S MY POINT!!!!
Last time I accidently shot someone, I had to go downtown right away, breathalyzer, ID, permits, the works.
But I couldn't play the affluent celebrity/politician card.

Side note: Kermit only suffered a flesh wound....

Bad Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 6:38 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


I'm afraid I still don't see what's horrible about laws being checked for Constitutionality before they are enacted.

A lot of folks can't afford to challenge Unconstitutional laws, and sometimes the Supreme Court can decide not to hear a case, so a law will never be checked for Constitutionality.

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 6:41 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Good question.
4) Legal immunity for 'crimes' committed against foreign nations/people while in office. This will keep him from facing thousands of murder charges if he decides to mobilize troops somewhere in the world to accomplish X goal. It's assumed a President will inevitably mobilize troops and attack somebody sometime, and while this could constitute murder in a strict legal sense, we expect our President to have that power and exercise it from time to time. If we don't like how he uses his executive powers, he should be impeached and tossed out of office. I do not think that he should have the same immunity for crimes committed on US soil, though. I can think of few good reasons for him to mobilize troops to take out Topeka Kansas. If it's a policing operation, the troops should follow police procedure, and not just gun down or bomb the general population.

Anyhow, that's my opinion on how much the President should be legally liable.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner



If the President declares War, then he is not liable. If the President invades a country without the agreement of the UN? Well then isn't he violating the law? Isn't he the responsible for any attrocities?

Why should a President be above the law of the land he governs for the people BY the people?

Whatever happened to that quaint little notion - THE BUCK STOPS HERE?



Well, the President of the US doesn't need the agreement of the UN to declare War. He needs the agreement of Congress.

And the President doesn't need the agreement of Congress to move troops. I think that's how a lot of our police actions take place.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 6:51 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


He does need the sanction of the UN, these days, if he is going to avoid all the censure of the world at large. Unless the US is attacked, it is very difficult for any President to justify the insertion of American troops into another country. "Police action" is a euphemism used to placate an increasingly dissaproving American public. In reality, when a country uses the might of its DOD to kill people, take possesion of strategic locations, and enforce its views of liberty and democracy on another nation, its war. Lets let go of the semantics and call it what it is.

America needs to pay more attention to how it is perceived by other Nations.

Congress will not give its agreement to go to war unless it genuinely feels that the country is at risk. In the case of Japan attacking Pearl Harbour, this was pretty definate. In the case of the current "situation" it was lied to.

So,should a President be above the law? Absolutely not. Anyone that thinks they should be, needs to take another US Government class and some history lessons. Leaders that are "above the law" are dictators.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 6:53 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm afraid I still don't see what's horrible about laws being checked for Constitutionality before they are enacted.


If they were checked, the Constitution could never be 'gotten around', and that would be horrble for some wanting to get their way with things...

Yang Chrisisall, protector of the E-Plebnista

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 6:55 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Leaders that are "above the law" are dictators.


ARE YOU CALLING PRESIDENT BUSH A DICTATOR?????



Would-be, I'd say Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 7:06 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


I have a feeling he THINKS he is. After all, he is THE DECIDER.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 7:31 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
After all, he is THE DECIDER.

Hmmmm...where have I heard that before?

Xanderisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 7:33 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


I have DECIDED that in my little world I am the "man". I think I will make up a T-shirt that says THE DECIDER! Wait a minute......nevermind

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 9:16 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm afraid I still don't see what's horrible about laws being checked for Constitutionality before they are enacted.

I’m just not ready to abandon the democratic system just yet. For all of its flaws, I still think it averages better then all the rest. And redefining our system as an Oligarchy of an unelected judiciary is taking the power a little farther from the people then I want it. I'm not saying your way wouldn't work; I'm just saying I don't support it.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 5:09 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm afraid I still don't see what's horrible about laws being checked for Constitutionality before they are enacted.



My problem with this is simple, the Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, and to the best of my knowledge there is no way to remove them. So what you have is a group of 7 people who rule absolutely, who cannot be impeached (I think), who can override any law by simply saying that it is unconstitutional. You might say that we could put in a system where Congress could push through laws anyway but that would defeat the whole purpose (since Congress could use the loophole to dump unconstitutional laws).

An additional problem is that if the balance of the Court was upset (i.e. if a Conservative president replaced a swing vote with a hardcore Conservative, which could never happen), then until someone on the Court died or left the majority group would be able to completely abolish the influence of the minority (regardless of what the actual division was in the country. Then if the process was reversed then hundreds of laws could be spontaneously reversed, causing chaos. All in all, not a good choice IMHO.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 3:02 PM

DC4BS



Actualy, a supreme court judge can be removed by congress through a process similar to an impeachment of a president.

From:
http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/ForEducators/SupremeCourtC
onfirmationFAQ.shtml#q3


What is the term length for Supreme Court Justices?

Once a Justice has been confirmed, he or she can serve on the Supreme Court for life “during good behavior.” Supreme Court Justices can only be removed through resignation or impeachment. The only Supreme Court Justice ever to have been impeached by the House of Representatives was Samuel P. Chase, in 1804. The Senate vote failed, and he remained on the Supreme Court until his death in 1811.

------------------------------------------
dc4bs

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 3:46 PM

STILLFLYIN


On the Issue of the Supreme Court, they are appointed for life. So, if they don't commit any crimes they stay until they die or decide to leave.
On the issue of the President, I think that no one should be above the law, but there are certain times when, in the defense of the country, the President beaking the law could be justified

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:23 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by dc4bs:

Actualy, a supreme court judge can be removed by congress through a process similar to an impeachment of a president.

From:
http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/ForEducators/SupremeCourtC
onfirmationFAQ.shtml#q3


What is the term length for Supreme Court Justices?

Once a Justice has been confirmed, he or she can serve on the Supreme Court for life “during good behavior.” Supreme Court Justices can only be removed through resignation or impeachment. The only Supreme Court Justice ever to have been impeached by the House of Representatives was Samuel P. Chase, in 1804. The Senate vote failed, and he remained on the Supreme Court until his death in 1811.

------------------------------------------
dc4bs



EDIT: the hell? it didn't post my response, huh. Oh well, time to retype.

I stand corrected, thank you for being civil while correcting me.

I believe that even in the face of this new information the point of my post is still valid. Even if they can be removed it is probably not very easy (and certainly not common).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:44 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Leaders that are "above the law" are dictators.


ARE YOU CALLING PRESIDENT BUSH A DICTATOR?????



Nah, I'd never say such a thing.

Quote:

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
—President-Elect Governor George W. Bush Jr, convicted drunk driver, convicted drug addict (expunged by diversion, parole and restitution), arrested for theft, arrested for vandalism, demoted from pilot to mail clerk in Texas Air National Guard for disobeying direct order for drug test AWOL, sentenced six months extra duty for desertion of Vietnam Wars, sued for rape, sued under RICO Act for perping the terrorists attacks on 9/11/2001, CNN News Transcript, December 18, 2000
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html
http://thoughtcrimenews.com/bushrape.htm
http://geocities.com/green_party_dwi_jokes
http://911forthetruth.com
http://awolbush.com

"A 'con man', a 'confidence man', is the best-dressed, the best-spoken. He has to be since his intention is to separate you from your money, from your freedom. This is his 'M.O.' - his modus operandi. Our representatives in Washington DC remind me of the best conmen. This is a lesson we all have to learn."
—Detective Frank Serpico, NYPD, ThePowerHour.com, GCN Radio Network, GCNlive.com, WBCR 1470am Alcoa, Tennessee, 2002

"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas so it's probably in Tennessee. Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. You fooled me, you can't get fooled again."
—President George Bush Jr, sued for rape, sued under RICO Act for perping the terrorist massacres on 9/11/2001

"There's a report out tonight that 24-years ago I was apprehended in Kennebunkport, Maine, for a DUI. That's an accurate story. I'm not proud of that. I oftentimes said that years ago I made some mistakes. I occasionally drank too much and I did on that night. I was pulled over. I admitted to the policeman that I had been drinking. I paid a fine. And I regret that it happened. But it did. I've learned my lesson."
—Governor George Bush Jr, CNN Larry King Live, November 2, 2000
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0011/02/lkl.00.html
http://thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html
http://thesmokinggun.com/archive/cheney_doc.html

"The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
—Constitution for the united States of America, Article II, Section 4

citizen's arrest.
an arrest made not by a law officer but by any citizen who derives the authority to arrest from the fact of being a citizen. Note: Under common law, a citizen may make an arrest for any felony actually committed, or for a breach of the peace committed in his or her presence.
—Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996

"A private citizen, in making an arrest authorized by law, may use force reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest of an individual who flees or resists the arrest; provided, that a private citizen cannot use or threaten to use deadly force except to the extent authorized under self-defense or defense of third person statutes, §§ 39-11-611 and 39-11-612."
—Tennessee Code 39-11-621. Use of deadly force by private citizen.

"A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The person must have a reasonable belief that there is imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury must be real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and must be founded upon reasonable grounds. There is no duty to retreat before a person threatens or uses force."
—Tennessee Code 39-11-611(a)



I'd be happy to personally arrest Junior Bush. All it takes is shaking his hand, since to make a legitimate arrest, there must be physical contact. If Steven Colbert REALLY had guts, he would have arrested Bush, instead of just make vicious jokes at the White House Correspondents Dinner. I've already filed criminal charges against govt employees, getting over 100 govt employees fired, including a court clerk and chief of staff of US Air Force during Gulf War #1. But since career criminals run the entire "justice" system, it's almost impossible to get Gangsta Govt to arrest gangstas in govt.
http://piratenews.org/newslinks.html

Probable cause exists to arrest Jr Bush for many felonies, including making false statements, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, murder, embezzlement, terrorism, treason and a dozen other crimes. Any law enforcement officer can arrest Jr Bush without a warrant. Any grand jury can indict Jr Bush. Any judge can issue an arrest warrant for Jr Bush.

So I volunteer to arrest Bushes and Cheneys. That's why Bush forces all spectators at "public meetings" to sign "loyalty oaths", or they are arrested and ejected, like Cindy Sheehan.

General Janis Karpinski admitted to me that the Bush Gang has infiltrated all police depts and prosecutor offices, in order to illegally subvert all attempts to arrest Jr Bush. MP3 Download:
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/04/9570.php


Fabulous bird flu - Gay men love their little doggies...
http://slantmouth.com


Inara: I just wish you'd killed that old bastard.
Mal: I got regrets on that score myself.
-War Stories

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 2:54 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


And in a related event:

Quote:

Kennedy Blames Accident on Sleep Medicine
By ANDREW MIGA Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Rep. Patrick Kennedy crashed his car near the Capitol early Thursday, and a police official said he appeared intoxicated. Kennedy said he had taken sleep medication and a prescription anti-nausea drug that can cause drowsiness...

Kennedy appeared to be intoxicated when he crashed his Ford Mustang into a barrier on Capitol Hill early Thursday morning, said Louis P. Cannon, president of the Washington chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Cannon, who was not there, said the officers involved in the accident were instructed by an official "above the rank of patrolman" to take Kennedy home.

No sobriety tests were conducted at the scene.


http://wtop.com/index.php?nid=116&sid=781947


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 3:03 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

No sobriety tests were conducted at the scene.


Yeah, I'm hearing reports from all over, people who crash cars are just escorted home; no tests or paperwork, it's like the laws have changed to make drunk driving acceptable, or something.
*Danger: maximum safe acidic snark level has just been exceeded*

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 3:39 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by piratenews:

General Janis Karpinski admitted to me that the Bush Gang has infiltrated all police depts and prosecutor offices, in order to illegally subvert all attempts to arrest Jr Bush.


I thought one of your things was that all prosecutors lack legal authority to make arrests. Or maybe you just think we can't arrest you.

Anyway, so you want to arrest Bush just by 'touching him'? There's alot of reasons why the Secret Service would keep you from touching the President. Your desire to "arrest" him is way down the list...heck, its on the 2nd page...near the bottom. I suspect your desire to touch Bush is something more primal and something you've been denied all your life.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 12:54 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


In a related event, Cheney had a terrible accident and asked the SS to keep sobriety testing at bay.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 3:36 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
In a related event, Cheney had a terrible accident and asked the SS to keep sobriety testing at bay.



Well, at least it's bi-partisan.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 1:54 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Well, at least it's bi-partisan.
'cept that Kennedy didn't ask for exemption like Cheney did, no one was hurt like Whittington was, and if Kennedy had been drinking (like Cheesey probably was) it wouldn't have triggered criminal charges.

Yep, it's the same, other than those insignificant items.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 8:06 PM

RIGHTEOUS9




"Chappaquitick, Chappaquitick Chapaquitik!!!"

Hope I didn't steel anybody on the right's thunder.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 9, 2006 9:04 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I think your comment got all the attention it deserved.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russian losses in Ukraine
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:45 - 982 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:44 - 496 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:27 - 3338 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:09 - 709 posts
Elections; 2024
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:08 - 1982 posts
Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:06 - 753 posts
MO AG Suing Large Nationwide Child Sex-slave Trafficker
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:24 - 2 posts
New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:21 - 7 posts
RCP's No Toss-Up State Map (3-15-2024)
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:19 - 2 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, March 18, 2024 08:03 - 6091 posts
Israeli War
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:27 - 31 posts
CNN: Is the US on the brink of another civil war?
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:22 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL