100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Pardoning yourself???? How did we miss this? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
celticpride0280
on
Tue 02/19/08 10:06 AM
|
|
Typical liberal BS...All show , no go....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure why this surfaces years after it was passed and how any laws passed in the US would protect a president from being prosecuted by the world court. I imagine if a country could pass such a law Saddam and a few others would have done it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wiley
on
Tue 02/19/08 10:55 AM
|
|
I'm not sure why this surfaces years after it was passed and how any laws passed in the US would protect a president from being prosecuted by the world court. I imagine if a country could pass such a law Saddam and a few others would have done it... It never passed. Never even came close. Never even got to a debate much less a vote. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wiley
on
Tue 02/19/08 10:49 AM
|
|
did you not see the bill did not pass there was no pardon sites are listed above They don't care. It doesn't help to further their argument. This is not true I do care, but it really doesn't change the fact that he tried to pardon himself for war crimes. Just attempting to do it means he knows he is in trouble. What do you mean "he tried to pardon himself?" The President doesn't write legislation. Congress does. Legislative power Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by which he was empowered to selectively nullify certain provisions of a bill before signing it. The Constitution Article I, Section 8; (and especially the necessary and proper clause as summation) gives all the Power to Congress. Congress has the exclusive power to legislate, to make laws and in addition to the enumerated powers it has all other powers vested in the government by the Constitution. The President has the responsibility to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the Laws of the United States in much the same way as a vassal takes an oath of allegiance to his liege lord. He is delegated authority by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, but the Congress can never give its power away. Where Congress does not make so great and sweeping a delegation of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details." Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional. In a case involving the creation of the National Recovery Administration called A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Congress could not authorize the President to formulate codes of "fair competition." It was held that Congress must set some standards governing the actions of executive officers. The Court, however, has deemed that phrases such as "just and reasonable," "public interest" and "public convenience" suffice. Do yourself a favor and read up on the US Constitution before you make such an asinine statement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Typical liberal BS...All show , no go.... I would think lefties and righties would care if their president is pardoning himself for war crimes by doing so he admits wrong doing, right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wiley
on
Tue 02/19/08 11:15 AM
|
|
Typical liberal BS...All show , no go.... I would think lefties and righties would care if their president is pardoning himself for war crimes by doing so he admits wrong doing, right? If it were true perhaps... But we already know it's patently false. If you don't by now, you're being willfully ignorant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
did you not see the bill did not pass there was no pardon sites are listed above They don't care. It doesn't help to further their argument. This is not true I do care, but it really doesn't change the fact that he tried to pardon himself for war crimes. Just attempting to do it means he knows he is in trouble. What do you mean "he tried to pardon himself?" The President doesn't write legislation. Congress does. Legislative power Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by which he was empowered to selectively nullify certain provisions of a bill before signing it. The Constitution Article I, Section 8; (and especially the necessary and proper clause as summation) gives all the Power to Congress. Congress has the exclusive power to legislate, to make laws and in addition to the enumerated powers it has all other powers vested in the government by the Constitution. The President has the responsibility to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the Laws of the United States in much the same way as a vassal takes an oath of allegiance to his liege lord. He is delegated authority by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, but the Congress can never give its power away. Where Congress does not make so great and sweeping a delegation of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details." Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional. In a case involving the creation of the National Recovery Administration called A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Congress could not authorize the President to formulate codes of "fair competition." It was held that Congress must set some standards governing the actions of executive officers. The Court, however, has deemed that phrases such as "just and reasonable," "public interest" and "public convenience" suffice. Do yourself a favor and read up on the US Constitution before you make such an asinine statement. A war time president has more powers than a peace time president. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
did you not see the bill did not pass there was no pardon sites are listed above They don't care. It doesn't help to further their argument. This is not true I do care, but it really doesn't change the fact that he tried to pardon himself for war crimes. Just attempting to do it means he knows he is in trouble. What do you mean "he tried to pardon himself?" The President doesn't write legislation. Congress does. Legislative power Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by which he was empowered to selectively nullify certain provisions of a bill before signing it. The Constitution Article I, Section 8; (and especially the necessary and proper clause as summation) gives all the Power to Congress. Congress has the exclusive power to legislate, to make laws and in addition to the enumerated powers it has all other powers vested in the government by the Constitution. The President has the responsibility to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the Laws of the United States in much the same way as a vassal takes an oath of allegiance to his liege lord. He is delegated authority by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, but the Congress can never give its power away. Where Congress does not make so great and sweeping a delegation of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details." Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional. In a case involving the creation of the National Recovery Administration called A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Congress could not authorize the President to formulate codes of "fair competition." It was held that Congress must set some standards governing the actions of executive officers. The Court, however, has deemed that phrases such as "just and reasonable," "public interest" and "public convenience" suffice. Do yourself a favor and read up on the US Constitution before you make such an asinine statement. A war time president has more powers than a peace time president. And yet he still doesn't write legislation. Even during war time. Go figure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Typical liberal BS...All show , no go.... I would think lefties and righties would care if their president is pardoning himself for war crimes by doing so he admits wrong doing, right? If it were true perhaps... But we already know it's patently false. If you don't by now, you're being willfully ignorant. No ignorancy here, baby shrub supporters are much more ignorant. They blindly believe him. He has shirked his responsiblities to this country and all 9/11 victims by not pursuing bin laden for the crime of 9/11 instead starting an illegal war. He has tried to expand his powers at every turn, even to violate the rights of the people. He has admitted to being a dictorial president by saying that he cares not if we like what he does. He has mislead the American people on Iraq at every turn. And now he attempted to get congress to pass a law forgiving him and his people of war crimes. When is enough enough for the American people???? I know my limitations were met a long time ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wiley
on
Tue 02/19/08 11:40 AM
|
|
Typical liberal BS...All show , no go.... I would think lefties and righties would care if their president is pardoning himself for war crimes by doing so he admits wrong doing, right? If it were true perhaps... But we already know it's patently false. If you don't by now, you're being willfully ignorant. No ignorancy here, baby shrub supporters are much more ignorant. They blindly believe him. He has shirked his responsiblities to this country and all 9/11 victims by not pursuing bin laden for the crime of 9/11 instead starting an illegal war. Ah the good old "illegal" war argument. So tell me something: If Iraq was an "illegal" war and the Democrats hold the majority in Congress right now, how come there still has been no talk of impeachment? Guess there isn't anything to your "illegal" charge... While you're at it, please point to the section of the Constitution that requires Congress to declare war to make it a legal war. I couldn't find it. Since they continue to fund it, my guess would be that they think it's legal too. He has tried to expand his powers at every turn, even to violate the rights of the people. If you're referring to the Patriot Act... again that's legislation written and passed by Congress. You should really put the blame where it's due. He has admitted to being a dictorial president by saying that he cares not if we like what he does. Who cares? Bill Clinton called himself "the first Black President." Let's string him up for that. He has mislead the American people on Iraq at every turn. Nope. The only ones misled are the ones buying all the crap from lefty propaganda sites as wholesale fact instead of checking the facts for themselves. You know, like a story about how the President wrote a bill to pardon himself and got it passed.  And now he attempted to get congress to pass a law forgiving him and his people of war crimes. No he didn't. The legislation you are mistakenly referring to was proposed by Duncan Hunter, a US Congressman. When is enough enough for the American people???? I know my limitations were met a long time ago. Let me guess. When Clinton left office? [insert rolling eyes smilie here] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Tue 02/19/08 11:54 AM
|
|
You have the right to your opinion and I mine and I know that he is the worst president in the history of this country.
Baby shrubs has failed this country miserably as a leader. And just because someone else writes the legislation, almost anyone can, just because someone else proofs the bill, etc.... does not mean he did not have a hand in it or propose it in the first place. Considering his record, he needed it and he wanted it, so he was backing the bill and he had his personal reasons for wanting it, just like he has done all along and "news flash" nothing he does is for the American people at least not the ones not like him, that is for sure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have the right to your opinion and I mine and I know that he is the worst president in the history of this country. Sure. I just prefer to base my opinion on facts instead of rhetoric. Apparently that's a huge difference between us. And just because someone else writes the legislation, almost anyone can, just because someone else proofs the bill, etc.... does not mean he did not have a hand in it or propose it in the first place. I've already shown you he didn't have a hand in it. As far as proposing it, he could have. The President can propose anything he wants to. Here's the rub: Only Congress can write the actual law. Something you keep ignoring. Considering his record, he needed it and he wanted it, so he was backing the bill and he had his personal reasons for wanting it, just like he has done all along and "news flash" nothing he does is for the American people at least not the ones like him, that is for sure. Backing the bill? More ignorance. The only thing the President can do regarding legislation is veto. But then I suppose by not vetoing the bill he backed it? Of course, never mind that the bill never even made it past the House to be vetoed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
leahmarie
on
Tue 02/19/08 12:02 PM
|
|
its a nice indicator how far above the law bush thinks he is, why my goodness if I broke the law I will just write a new law that pardonsme..wtf......and what is with all hthis dribble about clinton and all the other stuff?this topic is about Bush parodneing himself it isnt about what clinton did or nixon or any other past criminal and chief but no one ever passed a law to pardon themselve, not even Nixon. wake up america this is a bannana republic madman...... Where are your facts? Banana Republic ..... I have read a number of threads initiated by you and the so-called facts that you post in those threads make out as if our country is a banana republic. Incidentally, I cut/pasted part of your second post wherein you state "........ no wonder the world hates america so bad....." I want to explain why part of that is happening. We are on a site that is international. There are people not only from the United States on this Dating Site who participate in these political forums, but also people from Europe and South America and elsewhere. Part of the reason we are hated is because of people such as yourself. Your threads bash Bush and America and do not offer solutions or alternatives. You encourage posters to vent anti-Americanism and hatred towards our country and at our president. The above type of threads you post give those who are not American citizens a bad perspective of our country. Furthermore, you post items from websites without checking out the facts, and I have found that most of the time the stuff you post is wrong. So, if you want people to stop hating our country, be part of the solution and not the problem by posting threads that offer hope and solutions as to what is wrong in our country. MADMAN......First you are using the analogy about the "pot calling the kettle black" in a context that doesn't make sense. Second, I have been on threads you initiated and pointed out that the material you have plagerized from who-knows-what website was incorrect. You have never responded to me. You do one of two things. You get Dragoness to post a back-biting answer that is usually full of foul curse words, such as she has used on this thread, or you ignore me since, of course, there is no defense for initiating factless plagerized posts. Third, how about addressing the points I have made instead of trying to hijack the issue by throwing in a proverb that is not applicable to what I posted? Noone "gets" me to do anything. I do what I want. The posts I post are my true beliefs and understandings of situations, sorry, if for one you consider them "back biting" and two if I use a curse word once in a while, that is not foul mouthed. I will continue to post how I feel you continue to post how you feel, if we cross hairs we cross hairs, that will just be. DRAGONESS...... Me thinkith the [loser] doth protest too much. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are not making points referring to a GOP congress, they were doing whatever he asked of them so what does that prove that his cronies wrote it and were trying to get it passed???
There is no win when defending the great shrub, he has pushed the line so many times in the last eight years that he cannot legitimately be defended. You are failing miserably as all others have before you and those after you too will fail. I actually feel sorry for those who defend him because he screws his faithful every chance he gets. Hey he did give ya'll some hush money though with his economic revitalization thingy.....LOL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wiley
on
Tue 02/19/08 12:08 PM
|
|
You are not making points referring to a GOP congress, they were doing whatever he asked of them so what does that prove that his cronies wrote it and were trying to get it passed??? There is no win when defending the great shrub, he has pushed the line so many times in the last eight years that he cannot legitimately be defended. You are failing miserably as all others have before you and those after you too will fail. I actually feel sorry for those who defend him because he screws his faithful every chance he gets. Hey he did give ya'll some hush money though with his economic revitalization thingy.....LOL I'm not defending Bush nor do I need to. If you had gotten anything right then maybe I would but since that isn't the case... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wiley
on
Tue 02/19/08 12:17 PM
|
|
You are not making points referring to a GOP congress, they were doing whatever he asked of them so what does that prove that his cronies wrote it and were trying to get it passed??? But if they were doing whatever he asked of them then why didn't the bill pass? I thought he wanted it to pass? Oops. So much for your rhetorical logic... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
did you not see the bill did not pass there was no pardon sites are listed above They don't care. It doesn't help to further their argument. This is not true I do care, but it really doesn't change the fact that he tried to pardon himself for war crimes. Just attempting to do it means he knows he is in trouble. What do you mean "he tried to pardon himself?" The President doesn't write legislation. Congress does. Legislative power Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by which he was empowered to selectively nullify certain provisions of a bill before signing it. The Constitution Article I, Section 8; (and especially the necessary and proper clause as summation) gives all the Power to Congress. Congress has the exclusive power to legislate, to make laws and in addition to the enumerated powers it has all other powers vested in the government by the Constitution. The President has the responsibility to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the Laws of the United States in much the same way as a vassal takes an oath of allegiance to his liege lord. He is delegated authority by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, but the Congress can never give its power away. Where Congress does not make so great and sweeping a delegation of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details." Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional. In a case involving the creation of the National Recovery Administration called A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Congress could not authorize the President to formulate codes of "fair competition." It was held that Congress must set some standards governing the actions of executive officers. The Court, however, has deemed that phrases such as "just and reasonable," "public interest" and "public convenience" suffice. Do yourself a favor and read up on the US Constitution before you make such an asinine statement. before or after the patriot act fukked it up? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
did you not see the bill did not pass there was no pardon sites are listed above They don't care. It doesn't help to further their argument. This is not true I do care, but it really doesn't change the fact that he tried to pardon himself for war crimes. Just attempting to do it means he knows he is in trouble. What do you mean "he tried to pardon himself?" The President doesn't write legislation. Congress does. Legislative power Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by which he was empowered to selectively nullify certain provisions of a bill before signing it. The Constitution Article I, Section 8; (and especially the necessary and proper clause as summation) gives all the Power to Congress. Congress has the exclusive power to legislate, to make laws and in addition to the enumerated powers it has all other powers vested in the government by the Constitution. The President has the responsibility to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the Laws of the United States in much the same way as a vassal takes an oath of allegiance to his liege lord. He is delegated authority by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, but the Congress can never give its power away. Where Congress does not make so great and sweeping a delegation of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details." Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional. In a case involving the creation of the National Recovery Administration called A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Congress could not authorize the President to formulate codes of "fair competition." It was held that Congress must set some standards governing the actions of executive officers. The Court, however, has deemed that phrases such as "just and reasonable," "public interest" and "public convenience" suffice. Do yourself a favor and read up on the US Constitution before you make such an asinine statement. before or after the patriot act fukked it up? Feel free to provide any part of the Patriot Act that allows the President to write legislation. I'll wait. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a 2 year old story and it's still being pushed and misreported by the leftists....with all the terrible things that Bush is apparently doing isn't there some more current to occupy your idle minds?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
he shouldn't be able to pardon himself or his own people. that just seems like an abuse
Sorry,,,,,, But I dont care if any detainees were mistreated because they were trying to kill Americans! oh be quiet, you're not sorry |
|
|
|
|
