Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Udie on June 11, 2002, 03:40:13 PM
-
http://webcenter.newssearch.netscape.com/aolns_display.adp?key=200206111300000151966_aolns.src
These sorry F**Kers in congress are really starting to get my goat bad. WTF are these guys thinking? They keep pushing one issue after another to harm the President in a time of war. WTF do they think they are doing? For political gain they are willing to throw this country into a constitutional crisis in a time of war. That's equal to aiding and abedding the enemy to me.
One bogus issue after another. That's all they are worth now. When was the last time they offered ANYTHING other than descent? Please Lord in Heaven let them lose all of their remaining power this November.....
on a related topic (ie. Washington Democrats are the biggest pieces of sh_t this side of the pecos!)
http://webcenter.newssearch.netscape.com/aolns_display.adp?key=200206111318000152769_aolns.src
hmm turns out to be true after all....
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
"That included $4,850 for 62 keyboards"
$78.22 per copy! :eek:
But seeing the level of intelligence Bush displays the cost probably included paying a tech for on site installation. :D
-
Is there a better way for congress to stop the abrigation of the ABM Treaty? Isn't this what deomocracy is about? These members of the US congress represent those in the United States who think that Treaty Abrigation is a bad move. Should they not be allowed to make a case that the president is over-stepping his bounds by not getting congressional approval for this action?
-Sikboy
-
Dude, given the subject of this thread you really should have spelt intellectually correctly.
-
Udie
It has nothing to do with anything but saving their own arses in 5 short months.
two words:
November Elections
they are so desperate to have something/anything stick to the Pres and his party, the are throwing everything but the kitchen sink :)
It'll only get more ridiculous as the 2002 elections draw closer.
-
Looks to me like Congress, at least that part of it filing suit, is gonna lose this one.
Article XV
1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.
2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from the Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.
(signed by)
FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
RICHARD NIXON
President of the United States of America
FOR THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS:
L. I. BREZHNEV
General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Is there a better way for congress to stop the abrigation of the ABM Treaty? Isn't this what deomocracy is about? These members of the US congress represent those in the United States who think that Treaty Abrigation is a bad move. Should they not be allowed to make a case that the president is over-stepping his bounds by not getting congressional approval for this action?
-Sikboy
Where does the constitution say the president does not have this authority?
If congress has a beef with it then they should argue it in congress which was tried and failed.
``I am troubled that many in Congress appear willing to cede our constitutional responsibility on this matter to the executive branch,'' said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. He tried unsuccessfully Monday to bring a resolution to the Senate floor stating that the president cannot withdraw from the treaty without Senate approval.
Kucinich last week tried to get the House to vote on a similar resolution, but House Republicans unanimously rejected a motion to bring the issue to a vote. GOP lawmakers generally support the administration's decision to withdraw from the treaty, which prohibited the United States and the Soviet Union from building major missile defenses and has been an impediment to the administration's plans to move ahead with a missile defense system.
Where in the constitution does it give congress authority to end treaties? Nowhere? Where does it say they have the authority to stop a president from ending a treaty? I'll read it again tonight just to make sure...
Then there's wonderful statements like this....
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, ......``The Constitution of the United States is being demolished and we need to challenge that in court,''
it is? maybe they have a point with the american that the justice department handed over to the military, but here? I think not... Why use such inflamitory language? Would it be to damage the rating of a 77% aproved president? I think so.....
Hell they should hire Weazel as a speech writer! :D
Fatty,
Yeah you're right, but I'm the product of a liberal education system so what do you expect? ;)
Eagler,
I think you are 100% correct..... The democrats in congress don't collectively add up to the worth of the dump I took last night after eating chili......................
Weazel,
Yeah that seems steep to me too, but I have seen keyboards well over $100 before. That ergonomic BS. They probably have to buy the ergonomic ones so that all the P.O.S. government employees won't yell C.P.S. and get worker's comp. .....
( Before I piss anybody off here let me say that this is all pointed at congress and not any democrat citizen that I know or associate with....)
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
Originally posted by Udie
Where does the constitution say the president does not have this authority?
Nowhere. That's why I feel that this is best left to the court.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Nowhere. That's why I feel that this is best left to the court.
-Sikboy
Exept for the fact that if it's not in the constitution it's in the purvue of the states, not the congress, not the judicial or in the executive. In fact I can find nothing in the constitution that gives any branch of the federal government power to end any treaty. Granted I used the index for the word "treaty" but it only comes up in Article I section 10, Article II section 2, Article III section 2 and Article IV. It does give the senate power to ratify treaties, but says nothing at all about ending them.
So maybe these democrats should get the states to sue the federal government. They may actually have a case there if they could actually get that done. The way they are doing it now is illegal and is being used to tarnish a sitting wartime president. I can personaly find NO justification for that at all. No matter how much they hate the shrub. Then again it doesn't suprise me one bit. I doubt if 1/2 of them have ever even read the constitution that they swore to uphold, that goes for both parties.....
-
Checks and balances... The judicial branch will get to field this one.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Checks and balances... The judicial branch will get to field this one.
I don't think they'll take the case, well I hope not anyway :D
-
Originally posted by Udie
The way they are doing it now is illegal and is being used to tarnish a sitting wartime president.
Illegal? There is a question of law. They are alleging that the president doesnt have the authority to do do what he has done. Yet you're not saying "What Bush did was Illegal"
If there is no provision to do this in the constitution, then how can it be done? Sounds illegal. We should amend the constitution. But until we get said amendment, perhaps the treaty should stand?
-Sikboy
-
I don't really care about the issue, but anything the Dems can do to instigate another Udie BBS embolism is OK by me! :::chuckles:::
-
For the record though, In light of the new Arms control treaty with Russia, I myself have no problem with abrigating the ABM treaty.
-Sikboy
-
well the treaty says "each party" could withdraw and the president of the USA signed the treaty then the president of the USA must be one of the "each party" ,( no mention of congress), so the president of the USA can withdraw from the treaty
-
Originally posted by john9001
well the treaty says "each party" could withdraw and the president of the USA signed the treaty then the president of the USA must be one of the "each party" ,( no mention of congress), so the president of the USA can withdraw from the treaty
Except that the President and Congress share the power to create treaties, so it wasn't like the congress was not involved.
But you might be right. We should Dig up Nixon and have him abbrigate the treaty.
-Sikboy
-
Last I'd noticed we weren't actually at war, regardless of all the hyperbole and rhetoric. So Bush isn't a sitting wartime president, as if that should make a president off limits.
-
actually...ALL the major parties in the US are 'DemocraTIC'...you are mixing the DemoCRAT party with being DemocraTIC...
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Dude, given the subject of this thread you really should have spelt intellectually correctly.
ROTFLOL!
-
When does the "time of war" expire? After Bush's re-election, or when the last terrorist surrenders?
Just so we know when it's okay to disagree with the President.
:)