I'm surprised not has posted this.

[Jenny_Jackson]

Frontline last night played "Chaney's Law". I don't always care much for Frontline's reporting, but this one is just scary and seem quite accurate from what I've seen in Legislative Investigations and the press.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/

I find it scary that anyone in our government, let alone the Vice President, would spend so much time looking for ways to perloin another branch of government in an effort to userp power that clearly is violation of the U.S. Constitution.

I'm left with one big question: Where the hell is Congress and why don't they have the guts to put an end to this?

 

[sr71plt]

Frontline last night played "Chaney's Law". I don't always care much for Frontline's reporting, but this one is just scary and seem quite accurate from what I've seen in Legislative Investigations and the press.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/

I find it scary that anyone in our government, let alone the Vice President, would spend so much time looking for ways to perloin another branch of government in an effort to userp power that clearly is violation of the U.S. Constitution.

I'm left with one big question: Where the hell is Congress and why don't they have the guts to put an end to this?

Precisely so. The Democrats are a bunch of yutzes. Too bad there isn't a Democratic equivalent of McCain in Congress--for starters.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Precisely so. The Democrats are a bunch of yutzes. Too bad there isn't a Democratic equivalent of McCain in Congress--for starters.

I'm afraid you are right in one way. The Bush Administration has set a serious precident that will cause serious problems down the road. It started with a Republican Congress that gave Bush Carte Blanch to do anything. But when the Democrats took over, they bitch but do nothing.

From another point of view, the bitching and continued exposure does work toward electing a Democratic President and additional Senators and Congressmen in 2008. If that's the current policy of the Democratic Party, I am really very ashamed.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm afraid you are right in one way. The Bush Administration has set a serious precident that will cause serious problems down the road. It started with a Republican Congress that gave Bush Carte Blanch to do anything. But when the Democrats took over, they bitch but do nothing.

From another point of view, the bitching and continued exposure does work toward electing a Democratic President and additional Senators and Congressmen in 2008. If that's the current policy of the Democratic Party, I am really very ashamed.

Then I'm afraid you will need to be very ashamed. If this were a movie, I'd now have either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama say, very publicly, "Nuts to this campaign crap, I'm a U.S. senator and this situation is in such a mess I'm returning to the Senate and screaming my bloody head off about what needs to be done--now." Then I'd be very methodical and public about what I was doing in trying to get all sorts of snarls unraveled--even if everything I did was voted down.

And, you know what? If the electorate had half a clue (which, unfortunately, it doesn't), I'd win the presidential election without being on the campaign trail at all. (If this were a movie).

This actually is Gore's chance to return, I think. He could today simply say "Hey, guys, I've now been awarded up the wazoo for simply pointing to where we should be putting our effort rather than into a war pit, and I obviously have a plan. So, let's go down a different road for a while."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Sorry guys! The Johnson Administration set the precedent back in 1865.

The crap that happens now has been going on for 140 years.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Sorry guys! The Johnson Administration set the precedent back in 1865.

The crap that happens now has been going on for 140 years.

You are talking about the "Presidential War Powers Act" which does give the President sweeping powers to act. However, the act also requires both Judicial and Legislative oversite. The Bush Administration has acted to circumvent any oversite under the guise of secrecy.

Both Nixon and Johnson tried to push the envelope of the act, but the Supreme Court said no so they backed off. Ronnie Ray-Guns tried it and ended up in the "Iran-Conta" mess.

The problem is the U.S. seems to have moved from a "Nation of Laws" to a Nation where anything goes and laws don't matter unless they can be used to gain anything the Administration wants.

 

[rgraham666]

That's what most people wanted, Jenny.

Anybody paying attention to the Shrubbies should have known. And I believe most people did. They didn't care. Because most people never believe it will be their balls in the vice.

Also, they were susceptible to bribery. Taxes were going to be lower under Bush and people wanted that.

The Democrats won't do anything because they know if they try to honestly and vigorously oppose the Shrubbies they'll be swift-boated so fast and so hard they won't even have time to scream.

To be honest, Jenny, speaking as an outsider, the U.S. has never cared much about the rule of law. 'Survival of the fittest' is the U.S. central ethic and that pays no attention to man made law.

 

[trysail]

Though it may come as a shocking surprise to you, I both listen to NPR and watch PBS. It so happens that I viewed the program. "Frontline" is usually excellent and I do my utmost to watch it.

You can relax. All is well, the system of checks and balances is working just fine. I slept soundly last night. I'm not worried. The Republic will survive.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Jenny Jackson

No. I'm speaking of President Andrew Johnson doing as he damned well pleased, and the Congress throwing members out who opposed legislation favored by the administration and Republican leaders. Even Johnson had enough of the corruption, refused to tolerate the worst offenders, and was impeached.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Jenny Jackson

No. I'm speaking of President Andrew Johnson doing as he damned well pleased, and the Congress throwing members out who opposed legislation favored by the administration and Republican leaders. Even Johnson had enough of the corruption, refused to tolerate the worst offenders, and was impeached.

James, I think you need to look a little closer at Andrew Johnson. He seems to have done nothing other than take a moderate position in opposition to a "Radical Republican Congress."

Under the Constitution, a President can be impeached only for "Hight Crimes and Misdomeanors". Johnson was impeached for a rightful replacement of Secretary of War, Stanton, which Congress claimed was a violation of the "Tenure of Office Act" which required a Cabinet member to serve out the term of office for which he was appointed. Stanton was appointed by Lincoln. At Lincoln's death, the term ended and Johnson was free to replace any Cabinet Member he wanted. That Act was subsiquently ruled both invalid and Unconstitutional. As Bush has pointed out a number of times, "Cabinet Memebers hold their office at the discression of the President."

The entire problem concerning Andrew Johnson was one of Congressional Manipulation of facts and events which lead to Johnson's impeachment, not unlawful or unconstitutional actions on the part of the President.

 

[sr71plt]

James, I think you need to look a little closer at Andrew Johnson. He seems to have done nothing other than take a moderate position in opposition to a "Radical Republican Congress."

Under the Constitution, a President can be impeached only for "Hight Crimes and Misdomeanors". Johnson was impeached for a rightful replacement of Secretary of War, Stanton, which Congress claimed was a violation of the "Tenure of Office Act" which required a Cabinet member to serve out the term of office for which he was appointed. Stanton was appointed by Lincoln. At Lincoln's death, the term ended and Johnson was free to replace any Cabinet Member he wanted. That Act was subsiquently ruled both invalid and Unconstitutional. As Bush has pointed out a number of times, "Cabinet Memebers hold their office at the discression of the President."

The entire problem concerning Andrew Johnson was one of Congressional Manipulation of facts and events which lead to Johnson's impeachment, not unlawful or unconstitutional actions on the part of the President.

True. Ya gotta have some feel for the historical circumstance. Johnson was a Southerner who fell into the White House right at the end of the Civil War with practically no personal support within the government and who tried to keep Reconstruction from getting zany to the point of spinning the recovering nation into economic chaos. There's no way he could have built up the steam needed to do more in the way of nation development than fight off those trying oust him from the political scene altogether.

The Bush administration has created its own problems through stupidity and arrogance--nothing at all like the Andrew Johnson era--and the Democrats are trying to look for the easy or elegant way back into power. It isn't going to happen in an easy or elegant way--if it's going to happen.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JENNY JACKSON

I'm familiar with Andrew Johnson. He looked the other way when the Radical Republicans were tossing people out of the House and Senate, and changing the final votes on legislation. He looked up into the sky while Republicans carried off everything 'not on fire' in the South. And I know why he was impeached.

 

[trysail]

Then there was, of course, Roosevelt II's attempt to "pack" the Supreme Court.

 

[S-Des]

The Democrats won't do anything because they know if they try to honestly and vigorously oppose the Shrubbies they'll be swift-boated so fast and so hard they won't even have time to scream.

Come on Rob, that's just silly. The Democrats are afraid of the scary Republicans and their attack ads? I forget . . . could you remind me who took out the full page ad in the NY Times calling a 5 star general (approved unanimously by Congress for running the war) a traitor? What's the point in talking politics if everything is going to come down to accusations that "The other side is so evil, we're doomed"? I've debated the idea of starting a thread to point out the viciousness on the compassionate left nowadays (sort of the flip side of Pure's old thread), but I just don't see the point. It seems like screaming "We're right and they're all bad" is all anyone wants to do around here anymore.

 

[sr71plt]

Then there was, of course, Roosevelt II's attempt to "pack" the Supreme Court.

Yep, that was the same sort of power grab. Doesn't really matter which side of the aisle goes for it, though--it still should be resisted (and in FDR's case was successfully resisted).

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The other side is so evil we're doomed.

 

[cloudy]

Come on Rob, that's just silly. The Democrats are afraid of the scary Republicans and their attack ads? I forget . . . could you remind me who took out the full page ad in the NY Times calling a 5 star general (approved unanimously by Congress for running the war) a traitor? What's the point in talking politics if everything is going to come down to accusations that "The other side is so evil, we're doomed"? I've debated the idea of starting a thread to point out the viciousness on the compassionate left nowadays (sort of the flip side of Pure's old thread), but I just don't see the point. It seems like screaming "We're right and they're all bad" is all anyone wants to do around here anymore.

What's that old verse, in the bible I think, about glass houses?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Father CLOUDY is here.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Frontline last night played "Chaney's Law". I don't always care much for Frontline's reporting, but this one is just scary and seem quite accurate from what I've seen in Legislative Investigations and the press.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/

I find it scary that anyone in our government, let alone the Vice President, would spend so much time looking for ways to perloin another branch of government in an effort to userp power that clearly is violation of the U.S. Constitution.

I'm left with one big question: Where the hell is Congress and why don't they have the guts to put an end to this?

It makes George's press conference yesterday in which he lectured Putin on the virutes of the "checks and balances" system.... mmmmm ironic, doesn't it?

-KC