Bush Makes Power Grab

[Zaknafien]

Thanks KC. I thought maybe my older days Republican imperialist views and military record would give me some credibility ! LOL... Anyways, what I see now is that most Americans are too concerned with imbicilic things like American Idol and Paris Hilton to be worried about real-world events and the state of our Republic. Its almost as if its a conscious effort to deaden the perceptions of a self-conscious American polity.

Bush is insane, and all reality a war criminal right up there with Andrew Jackson probably. But I don't blame Bush, I think he's merely a pawn, easily influenced, and honestly believes he's doing the right thing. Its the real power brokers like Cheney who are pressuring the POTUS to do these things.

I suggest anyone who hasnt seen "Why We Fight" and "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers" do so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xYeuzG24mo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEnX5meWTPQ

[Gawain of Orkeny]

hanks KC. I thought maybe my older days Republican

Pssst. Relatively speaking you dont have any older days Now n my older days a a screaming hippie liberal

[Odin]

Well lots of grand scheme's, plots all we need is the hero on the white horse to ride in and save the day. Maybe next time the thread would be better represented "one ring to rule them all"

But dont let the facts cloud the romance, I mean I get it, "Bush uses executive power granted under the constitution to employ a new law granted by congress" dosent make for a sexy title, or the opportunity to yet again go over the same redundant argument bush is crazy, hes the devil, what have you.

Now that the forces of good are in power, those wonderfully non corrupt, non crazy, non insane democrats I have no doubt the law that thier bodies passed that allowed him this right will be repealed instantly.

Oh wait, Im sorry there busy giving him more money to empower his evil endevors.

Makes for a good read though, because its all bush, all the time.

One ring to rule them all...

[Zaknafien]

democrats for the most part are just as decieved (or unwittingly evil) as bush and cronies are. Its well past time for revolution in the united states, but our people are asleep. sleeping giant, indeed. our own declaration of independence says it is our national responsibility to alter or abolish the government if necessary.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” and all that Founding Fathers speak, you know.

[Odin]

democrats for the most part are just as decieved (or unwittingly evil) as bush and cronies are. Its well past time for revolution in the united states, but our people are asleep. sleeping giant, indeed. our own declaration of independence says it is our national responsibility to alter or abolish the government if necessary.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” and all that Founding Fathers speak, you know.

Well Zak thats a unique perspective. MY point is that Bush didnt make a power grab, he excersised his right under the constitution. To date in the thread no one has disputed that fact.

All that aside there is real opposition to him in congress, this law could be revoked, repealed, or altered at any time to remove his ability to excersise the power.

You didnt mention that in your posts, you portrayed it as a "power grab". I understand the point your making, but when one continues to scream the same thing over and over again and unintentionaly embelishes the circumstances of the cause of screaming it detracts from the ability to have a rational discussion of the facts.

In the end, didnt the little boy who cried wolf die at the hands of the wolf?

[Zaknafien]

How can you not see it as a power grab? And Congress had nothing to do with it. The Constitution also says nothing about taking direct control of all three branches of government.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Well Zak thats a unique perspective. MY point is that Bush didnt make a power grab, he excersised his right under the constitution. To date in the thread no one has disputed that fact.

This statement is incorrect.

You didnt mention that in your posts, you portrayed it as a "power grab". I understand the point your making, but when one continues to scream the same thing over and over again and unintentionaly embelishes the circumstances of the cause of screaming it detracts from the ability to have a rational discussion of the facts.

A valid observation doesn't become less believable because it is repeated. On the contrary, the repetition will hopefully make those who are slow at understanding it to finally comprehend.

In the end, didnt the little boy who cried wolf die at the hands of the wolf?

The comparison is irrelevant. Peter in "Peter and the Wolf" cried for the wolf when he knew there wasn't one present. Zak is correctly analyzing the threats associated with passing a law that goes against the constitution and gives the President legal power to declare himself dictator any time he finds it appropriate to do so. Bush, however, could be compared with Peter with this crying about WMDs, while being wrong every time.

[Odin]

This statement is incorrect.

I'll reread the thread, I am humble enough to admit when I am wrong.

A valid observation doesn't become less believable because it is repeated. On the contrary, the repetition will hopefully make those who are slow at understanding it to finally comprehend.

Depends on how the repetition is framed

The comparison is irrelevant.

This statement is arrogant, it would suggest you determine whom makes a valid point of compare and who dosent. When you become a moderator or Admin then say this all you like, until such time you reveal a rather hostile tone under some pretext of supposed superiority because you disagree.

One might even call your point irrelevant under those circumstances

Peter in "Peter and the Wolf" cried for the wolf when he knew there wasn't one present.

Exactly, a power grab isnt present. I mis appropriation of power by congress might be, but we are all entitle to an opinion on that right Legio?

Zak is correctly analyzing the threats associated with passing a law that goes against the constitution and gives the President legal power to declare himself dictator any time he finds it appropriate to do so.

I havent disputed his right to do so, only his pretext for doing so.

Bush, however, could be compared with Peter with this crying about WMDs, while being wrong every time.

Sounds like a great subject for another thread Legio, why dont you start one ?

Have a wonderful day

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Zak':

You're not really calling for a revolution, you know. Revolutions occur when peoples rights, lives, and property are substantially threatened. Our revolution would never have gotten off the ground without the Stamp Act, the attempt to strictly enforce the Navigation Act, The Quartering Act, and -- possibly the greatest threat -- Britain's attempt to close off the frontier. Without those pressures, the words of Rousseau and Locke alone would not have done the trick. You point to the classic "panem et circum" reasons why the US population is not closer to revolt -- with some truth -- but you need to acknowledge the basic issue: life in the USA is pretty good and there is substantial opportunity for most individuals to improve things for themselves and their families along with a good deal of personal freedom to speak/do/think. Such conditions do not lend themselves to revolution.

The change between the republic of the founders and the republic we enjoy today is substantial, but it was accomplished in smaller well-meaning steps since the inception of the republic. There is simply no impetus for dictatorship -- a crisis profound enough that might lend itself to such has only existed twice in our history -- ACW and the 1930s. Both resulted in relatively powerful presidencies (each of whom contributed significantly to the cumulative changes that have altered the republic) but neither man approached dictatorial power though both held the office until their deaths. The key difference between the repulbic of then and the one of our present has been the slow aggrandizement of political power into the hands of the federal government and its bureaucracy at the expense of the power of the several states.

Some of the Steps:

Marshall's assumption of the role of "arbiter of the Constitution" on behalf of the Supreme Court. Article III notes that:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Marshall changed this to appellate review that defines the constitutionality of a law or some aspect of the process of justice.

Jefferson -- the man who wrote that allowing a President to stand for more than one term was an invitation to dictatorship -- calmly standing for his own second term (Jefferson accepted Washington's 2-term limitation on the office) and using the break-up of the federalists as a means to guarantee his party's domination of the Presidency for decades. No evidence exists that suggests that Burr was pursuing any "party" ambition when he shot Hamilton, but Burr did thereby end the career of the one person who might have brought the federalists back to power. Jefferson used this to his advantage.

Lincoln's declaration of secession as being unconstitutional, thereby binding any state to permanent membership in the federal system. While in office, Lincoln used the absence of Southern representation to pass the Homestead Act, Federal support for the development of a transcontinental railroad, the secession of West Virginia from Virginia (this being deemed constitutional as apparently only the federal constitution was binding in perpetuity) and issued the Emancipation Proclamation by fiat.

Theodore Roosevelt's assumption of the role on behalf of the federal government as primary regulator for all aspects of commerce within the United States. The initial goal was to prevent trusts and monopolies and to minimize child labor (good goals), but the result was to change the federal government from the key regulator of INTERSTATE and INTERNATIONAL commerce into the regulator of ALL commerce.

Then we have the 16th (Income Tax) and 17th ammendments (Direct Election of Senators). Both well intentioned, but both resulting in a huge increase in federal power at the expense of the several states.

Franklin Roosevelt, of course, expanded the role of government into nearly every facet of the economy and went about crafting programs that made the federal government the "safety net" for almost everything. Since that era, our states have been little more than districts for counting votes -- all the real decisions are made in Washington. Subsequent administrations-- almost without exception -- have heightened this effect (only Reagan didn't and he only by degrees).

A far cry from where we started.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Its well past time for revolution in the united states, but our people are asleep.

OMG we agree. Hope this dont get us in trouble. This is not what the founding fathers had in mind. At least IMO. I think Ron Paul is closer to that .

[Rodion Romanovich]

democrats for the most part are just as decieved (or unwittingly evil) as bush and cronies are. Its well past time for revolution in the united states, but our people are asleep. sleeping giant, indeed. our own declaration of independence says it is our national responsibility to alter or abolish the government if necessary.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” and all that Founding Fathers speak, you know.

It may very well become necessary to find a way out of this deadlock, but as long as the majority is ignorant about the dangers and threats to the constitution at present, a revolution would be doomed to fail. Might be better to flee from the country if the law can't be stopped, because if the law is passed, many American citizens who have critisized the Bush administration at any time may be in great danger of oppression and persecution.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This statement is incorrect.

Only in that no one has disputed it. Maybe he means no one with the power to do so?