Senator Cornyn's Letter to the President

[drapetomaniac]

I do not wish to abandon my sworn oath and do not avocate doing so. But for the sake of debate...at what point will our charges leave us vunerable?

I would have picked the temporary abandon of Pose Camitatus, secret detentions, mass wiretapping, torture. Others seem to think its bail-outs during severe recessions and universal health care (all being done by other democratic countries, except we're among the last for health care).

If I understand the history of our charges - they would have developed under Kings. So, where are the limitations there?

I've often mused about the charges and the fact that the founding father of so many countries abandoned them. It makes me more curious about the first three degrees of the Scottish Rite and if the charges differ there.

I do not follow any one aspect of our current political system, and am a big fan of term limits and small government. I can't wait for an independent to win something big and shake the system. Anyone who "run's for office" for a living has a screw loose and I don't really want that person leading my country.

I think anyone who does follow one part should attend their parties caucuses and conventions just one election year. The nature of these two corporations vying for power becomes evident.

Unfortunately, if we can't find a more reasoned way to discuss government in general, it won't matter if the person is independent or not. There are prominent people spreading lies of "death panels" and "internment camps" and "re-education camps" with little check on the claims (including Senators and Congressmen) and plenty of people fanning the flames and buying into them.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

A direct and plainly worded request to forward misinformation was turned into "report[ing] their fellow citizens," an enemies list and future gestapo.

Independent won't matter if we're still paranoid and don't encourage more critical thinking from the public when they're elected.

The results aren't good SPLCenter.org: New SPLC Report Details the Resurgent Militia Movement

I do not think that for one minute that our "government" has the ability to do half the stuff they announce,

I'd like to see people who hate government and think it's instantly incompetent the moment it's formed - stop trying to be those incompetent people. It's the only job in the world where somebody can say,"If I take this job, I'm going to suck at it" and people rally behind it."

I personally think American are bright and competent and can leading many areas we are behind in.

 

[Wingnut]

a good citizen would stand up against a major change in the principles of our republic.

 

[Wingnut]

Nobody said let him go. But let's stop pretending Obama is a unique creature (half Communist half Nazi) for doing the same things.

Apples and oranges... nothing Bush did was done without congressional approval, and in the case of the Patriot Act, it has been re-authorized. This was after all a democrat congress.

 

[drapetomaniac]

a good citizen would stand up against a major change in the principles of our republic.

I think it's commonly assumed our founding father's all had one single idea of what those principles are.

We've had severe improvements in our nation and national culture since the founding fathers.

I do think all good citizens should stand up for their conscience, as they make up the republic.

 

[Wingnut]

I find it simply amazing that 545 people are the only people that have direct control over anything that is done in American Government.

President (1):
* May veto laws (not line item sadly was ruled unconstitutional because it gave the President the power to effect legislation)
* May not refuse to spend money allocated for certain purposes
* Wages war at the direction of Congress (Congress makes the rules for the military)
* Makes decrees or declarations (for example, declaring a state of emergency) and promulgates lawful regulations and executive orders
* Often appoints judges
* Has power to grant pardons to convicted criminals

435 Congressmen in the House of Representatives and 100 Senators (535 total):
* Writes and enacts laws
* Enacts taxes, authorizes borrowing, and sets the budget
* Has sole power to declare war
* May start investigations, especially against the executive branch
* Often appoints the heads of the executive branch
* Sometimes appoints judges
* Ratifies treaties

Supreme Court (9 judges):
* Determines which laws Congress intended to apply to any given case
* Determines whether a law is unconstitutional
* Determines how Congress meant the law to apply to disputes
* Determines whether what Congress has legislated is unconstitutional
* Determines how a law acts to determine the disposition of prisoners
* Determines how a law acts to compel testimony and the production of evidence
* Determines how laws should be interpreted to assure uniform policies in a top-down fashion via the appeals process, but gives discretion in individual cases to low-level judges. (The amount of discretion depends upon the standard of review, determined by the type of case in question.)
* Polices its own members
* Is never immune to arbitrary dismissal by Congress through impeachment proceedings

With any one party in total control of 2 branches (or three arms if you wish to count the house and senate as seperate since they also provide checks and balances on each other) the entire balance of power is screwed.

No matter what anyone on either side says Sotomyors appoint didnt really make any major change to the Supreme Court, it is still a liberal leaning court, she replaced a liberal. The only real effect it has is that it will remain a liberal leaning court for much longer since she is relatively young by Justice standards.

No matter how its spun, 545 people are the root cause of every problem in America, but the sheeple keep electing the same 545 people (or ones cut from the same cloth) that caused the messes and expect to get a different result.

They can blame the 'system' or the economy or whatever but in the end, they are the ones that are legally, morally and ultimately responsible. They are the bureaucracy that has screwed the pooch. Taxes are out of control because they allow them to be. No matter who they want to point fingers at and blame, they are those 545 people...

 

[Wingnut]

I think it's commonly assumed our founding father's all had one single idea of what those principles are.

We've had severe improvements in our nation and national culture since the founding fathers.

I do think all good citizens should stand up for their conscience, as they make up the republic.

Not at all, spending some time reading the Federalist Papers it becomes very obvious they disagreed on many, if not most, things. But did agree on a some very important aspects and were willing to work together to come to a compromise.

Getting away from the principles enumerated in the Constitution has caused many of the problems we face today. Bail outs shouldn't be a question. Government funded health care isnt an enumerated power of the Federal Government. the most abused Right in the Bill of Rights is the 10th (which I feel was put as the last because it is the most important and our founding fathers wanted it to be the one that was read last to keep if in peoples head): The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[TCShelton]

after all Bush allowed waterboarding (which was legal under US code in 2003/2004).
Which saved no telling how many American lives.

Where is the documentation that it saved any at all?

 

[Wingnut]

Where is the documentation that it saved any at all?

Still classified, thats the documentation that Cheney has been pushing for obama to release, and most likely why the issue has been back burnered, a full hearing would cause that kind of information to be released. Releasing it would set that straw man on fire.

 

[TCShelton]

I'll believe it when I see it. I didn't know that any type of confession under torture was acceptable in this country anyway.

LRG, advocating the use of torture for any reason is troublesome, and goes directly against what America stands for. And to think that I would be standing on the side of traditional values in this debate is shocking...

Back to the Patiot Act, it basically gave the government free reign to look into any personal records/e-mails/phone calls, and even voicemail for little to no reason. When the great big scary "terrorism" word gets thrown into the mix, our government had the right to invade any kind of privacy we thought we had. That is a HUGE erosion of the personal freedoms that our Bill of Rights guarantees. But, we all know it is the Obama Adminstration's fault. lol

 

[Wingnut]

Congress passed two laws, the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005 and the Military Commissions Act in 2006. Both banned the use of harsh interrogation methods.

The Pentagon published a new Army field manual in 2006 that limits interrogation techniques and bans harsh methods, including waterboarding, hoods and mock executions.

It can be inferred from these laws being passed, the new handbook issued, that it was legal until a law was made that made it illegal.

It should be noted that water boarding was only performed on 3 people by CIA interrogators, including the master mind of the 9-11 attacks.

And to answer any future question: If it could be reasonably presumed that using 'enhanced interrogation' techniques on a known terrorist would save one of my loved ones lives, water boarding would be the least of their worries.

As for the Patriot Act, it again should be noted that this wasnt an executive order that Bush put into place. It was a law that Both Houses of congress, by a pretty large majority passed not once, not twice but three times in 2001, 2005 and 2006. In fact it actually changed very little of what was put in place with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (passed in 78 by the Carter Administration). It did however change how some law enforcement duties were preformed.

 

[TCShelton]

Even better. With a trend that is as old as this one is, we can probably stop blaming the current administration of all these problems.

 

[Robert Marshall]

Even better. With a trend that is as old as this one is, we can probably stop blaming the current administration of all these problems.

I can't speak for anyone else but at least in my eyes, I'm not "blaming" the current administration for all these problems. I flat dislike many of the actions being taken by the Obama administration for many of the reasons already discussed here. I could care less if Bush, Clinton, or Lincoln set the problems into motion because I can't do anything about that. I expect that everyone would concede that each President can only initially use the power held at the end of the previous administration and also, many of the problems stem from abuses made by previous Presidents, BUT, that does NOT mean that the abuse should continue to build into a giant rolling snow ball of s***. "Bush did this, bush did that." This argument is null and void to me. Whether you were pro-Bush or anti-Bush is irrelevant. If there is a problem, it is now. Yesterday's problem can no longer be prevented.

 

[Jamesb]

I second Longhorn's statement