132 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

Ninja

It was 1787.  Plus, the Prez could prosecute crimes described as 'terrorist related' PRIOR to whatever legislative act you might be referring to.

Are you suggesting to me that the US Constitution is NOT the supreme law of the land?  I might have misread your statement?

Otherwise, it appears simply that you have no training or education in the Constitution or the legal principles it embodies.  Welcome to the US, c. 2012.

[Bama13]

Babe Ruth, on 07 August 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

Ninja

It was 1787.  Plus, the Prez could prosecute crimes described as 'terrorist related' PRIOR to whatever legislative act you might be referring to.

Are you suggesting to me that the US Constitution is NOT the supreme law of the land?  I might have misread your statement?

Otherwise, it appears simply that you have no training or education in the Constitution or the legal principles it embodies.  Welcome to the US, c. 2012.

I believe that Ninja is a dyed-in-the-wool big government, nanny state kind of guy. If government says they can do something he agrees. I wasn't here before 2009 so I don't know if it is only when Dems are in control, or if he just likes big government whomever is in charge (I somehow doubt he agrees with republicans, but I don't honestly know).

[Babe Ruth]

One cannot blame the younger generations because they have not been educated about the Constitution and the legal principles behind it.  It's not really their fault, but it is still sad.

Reminds me of Franklin's comment, "...if you can keep it."  Clearly, it has been incrementally taken from us, AND we have been asleep at the wheel and lost it.

[ninjadude]

Babe Ruth, on 07 August 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

Are you suggesting to me that the US Constitution is NOT the supreme law of the land?  I might have misread your statement?

Supreme law yes. But other laws exist as well. Our society does not operate just based on the Constution. That would be silly. It is a framework that describes how government should operate. The president and military as limited by authority of the Congress.. Congress gave the president at the time the authority to prosecute terrorism. And they won't take it back.The AUMF Authorization to use military force says:

"The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups" - wikipedia

It seems you were absent during civics class. All this "dictator" crap spewed is simply what Congress authorized the president to do. He's doing his job. If he wasn't you'd be screaming about that too. And no I'm not some kid. I'm 52. And no, I'm not for "big government". We can whack 50% of the military today and balance the budget. My choices are different than yours because I'm a LIBERAL and damn proud of it.

Edited by ninjadude, 08 August 2012 - 01:19 AM.

[Bama13]

ninjadude, on 08 August 2012 - 01:19 AM, said:

Supreme law yes. But other laws exist as well. Our society does not operate just based on the Constution. That would be silly. It is a framework that describes how government should operate. The president and military as limited by authority of the Congress.. Congress gave the president at the time the authority to prosecute terrorism. And they won't take it back.The AUMF Authorization to use military force says:

"The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups" - wikipedia

It seems you were absent during civics class. All this "dictator" crap spewed is simply what Congress authorized the president to do. He's doing his job. If he wasn't you'd be screaming about that too. And no I'm not some kid. I'm 52. And no, I'm not for "big government". We can whack 50% of the military today and balance the budget. My choices are different than yours because I'm a LIBERAL and damn proud of it.

right, whack the military ( which I agree with BTW), something actually authorized by the constitution, but keep the welfare system, which isn't. Or the ED, which isn't.

I don't care if you are a liberal, conservative, or centrist. I am a constitutionalist. I believe in the constitution. It says what it means and means what it says. If it doesn't say the feds can do a certain thing then they can't legally do it. And I don't need the USSC telling me what the constitution means. I can read and understand it myself.

[ninjadude]

Bama13, on 08 August 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

I can read and understand it myself.

I don't mean to be insulting but apparently not.

[Babe Ruth]

Ninja

I assume that English is NOT your second language.

If that is the case, then the Constitution IS the supreme law of the land.  Thus, all other laws, if legitimate, are derived from the powers We The People have vested in our government by way of the document.

It is apparent from your posts that you simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND the US Constitution, or the legal principles upon which it is founded.

Primarily, for the purposes of this thread, you DO NOT UNDERSTAND that one branch CANNOT grant any other branch any powers at all.  There are certain points regarding the judiciary, but that is for another conversation.

Congress has NO authority to grant the Executive any powers at all.  If your position is that Congress does have such power, and that's what you're saying here, please show me that part of the Constitution that empowers Congress to grant the President powers.  I won't hold my breath, because it ain't there.

So while YOU may believe all the nonsense spouted by our elected officials regarding what the can or cannot do, there are some of us more informed that do not buy into such nonsense.

Again, I challenge YOU to show me that part of the document.

[ninjadude]

Babe Ruth, on 08 August 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

I assume that English is NOT your second language.

I only speak one language.

Quote

If that is the case, then the Constitution IS the supreme law of the land.  Thus, all other laws, if legitimate, are derived from the powers We The People have vested in our government by way of the document.

I did not disagree.

Quote

If your position is that Congress does have such power, and that's what you're saying here, please show me that part of the Constitution that empowers Congress to grant the President powers.

I have already. You seem to be completely and totally oblivious to laws passed in 200+ years. Or willfully want to ignore them. You can scream until you're blue in the face about how you believe certain laws are unconstitutional but until the Supreme Court rules one such, they have the force of law. And it's generally very expensive to challenge such a law. Were a savior to you like Ron Paul get elected President (LOL), nothing would change in the long run. Congress is still unlikely to change existing laws and the Supreme Court rules on very few. The constitution does allow for a great many things to be legislated that do not exist in the document. It is not a cage.

[Babe Ruth]

Not persuasive in the least, Ninja.

You are correct that as long as the USSC blesses any given piece of legislation it has the force of law.  But that argument ignores that they are human and they can be wrong.  That argument ignores that the Court can and does reverse itself, which is an admission of error.

But the larger point, which you have failed to address, is that one branch CANNOT grant any other branch powers NOT granted by the founding document.

[Bama13]

ninjadude, on 08 August 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

I don't mean to be insulting but apparently not.

What do you base your accusation on? A blanket statement means nothing. Why do you think that?

I don't mean to be insulting either, but your opinion doesn't mean squat to me because I do not know you, therefore I have no reason to trust your opinions. Now if you can show me where I was wrong about the Constitution that is another matter.

I will await your proof. Otherwise I will simply counter your statement with: I do have a perfect understanding of the Constitution.
It holds equal validity with your statement.

[Babe Ruth]

Ninja's comments here probably reflect the majority mindset on this issue.  Most folks simply have not been educated to the facts that our government is one of limited and enumerated powers.

As a result, they somehow see the government as omnipotent, able to do whatever it wishes, not matter the rules and no matter the law.  Especially post-911, they think the government can solve all problems, and do as it pleases as long as it says it is "fighting terrorists."  The younger generations simply have no idea, and that is largely a fault of our public education system.

[ninjadude]

look regardless of your crazy constitutionalism and ignoring of laws passed in 200+ years, the thread was about dictatorial government. The president can't declare war (past the war powers act which I'm sure you also will whine is "unconstitutional"). The Congress passed the AUMF. That GAVE the president the authority to prosecute terrorism. Nearly unlimited in it's scope. The Congress will not take it back.

[Babe Ruth]

The War Powers Act is superfluous Ninja, because the President is ALREADY the C-in-C.  The WPA was meant to make it look like Congress was doing something.  Only the media and the uninformed fell for that bit of silliness.

President FDR talked quite candidly about his powers as President.  He could not declare war, he said, because the Constitution gave that power to Congress, but he could WAGE war, which is true enough.

In short, it appears that you have bought into the sophistry advanced by the government and the media.  In short, you cannot come to terms with the reality that while dictators can and do kill whom they wish without any sort of due process, under the US form of government, the President MAY NOT.

Edited by Babe Ruth, 10 August 2012 - 06:04 PM.

[Tiggs]

Babe Ruth, on 10 August 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

In short, it appears that you have bought into the sophistry advanced by the government and the media.  In short, you cannot come to terms with the reality that while dictators can and do kill whom they wish without any sort of due process, under the US form of government, the President MAY NOT.

Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

I think you'll find that's all the authorization he needs.

[Bama13]

ninjadude, on 10 August 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

look regardless of your crazy constitutionalism and ignoring of laws passed in 200+ years, the thread was about dictatorial government. The president can't declare war (past the war powers act which I'm sure you also will whine is "unconstitutional"). The Congress passed the AUMF. That GAVE the president the authority to prosecute terrorism. Nearly unlimited in it's scope. The Congress will not take it back.

Oh, so to you pointing out that something is unconstitutional is whinning? Fair enough.

Guess I going to whine some more then: Where in the constitution does it say that congress can transfer their power to the president? It doesn't, because that would make it too easy for a president to become a dictator.

Sorry you do not like the constitution, but I love it. It is what guarantees our freedom. You prefer an all powerful government dictating how we live and act. I prefer an all powerful populace dictating to the government what we want them to do. I like to think for myself, you like someone else to tell you what to think.

We are done.