Re: It was bound to happen...
 

I don't think being the Federal government removes constitutional restraint just because so much attention is paid to the elecion every four years. Localized government is more meaningful and direct in it's implications, the US is built around that ideology. Who wants to be under the 'control' of a centralized system, without more local representation? What happens when Obama(figurehead not policy maker) decides that fascist maneuvering takes precedence over a stagnate economy? The millions of t-shirt wearing morons embrace it because obviously a polar opposite partisan is going to be doing 'good' in contrast to the last 8 years of 'bad'.

so, is the 2nd amendment relevant prof_S? just curious as to your thoughts since you hold the 10th as vitally important.


we're all gonna be obamanated pretty soon. I predict that, at this rate, within 4 years they're gonna have to make use of all the empty detainment centres located throughout the country. Not everyone's going to step in line to suck the presidents dick everytime he talks about hope when food stamps and 'socialized healthcare' are prescribed for the upcoming onslaught of consequences resulting from the now overt fascist meandering. ahaha, but that's just pessimistic. Dabble away el presidente

You know there's laws recently in place that make adherence to local state law over federal law a crime. doesn't bode well for Montana folk.

Re: It was bound to happen...
 

Typhoid, I stated before nothing gives the administration the right to do what they did. Pres. Obama is not a ruler, he is a public servant, and swore to uphold the constitution when he was sworn in. He has not. We do not elect Kings, we elect Presidents who make up one third of Federal power (Executive, Legislative and Judicial).


Game, I don't think violations of the Constitution to be annoying, they are a breach of our most basic trust in our governing officials. You talk about those that think like me failing to trust this administration. I am not the one breaking the trust. If you can not trust that a government will abide by the laws that founded it and they swore to enforce, why should we trust them?


Seth, to answer your question, I am a proponent of the 2nd amendment, and I am a gun owner. I find all the bluster about the intention of the amendment to be a bit silly. If you read the correspondence of the founders it is quite obvious what they intended: that each citizen has the right, and some believed the duty, of gun ownership.

That said, I don't mind reasonable regulation if guns, like background checks. I am against prohibitive taxes on ammunition, however, as I believe that violates the intention of the 2nd amendment as it is a way to basically castrate the amendment.

Other than that Seth, you're on your own. This whole shadow government and detention center thing is a bit out of control, IMO. If the current administration continues in this direction, we won't have to sorry about them in 4 years. The American people may be optimists and even gullible at times, but they are not stupid sheep to be led to their own disenfranchisement. The tide will eventually turn if these actions by the administration become a pattern. I still think elections matter.

Re: It was bound to happen...
 

Well, I can see you clearly make Obama the face of things that have been in the works for 50+ years. If you haven't learned by now, the Fed govt and the president do what they want to do once they're elected into office. Yes it sucks, but at this point the only thing you can do is hope for honestly and clarity on what is happening. And you can only hope that they have your best interest at heart and show constraint.

And they are not violating the constitution directly, unless the constitution is updated to include specific rules that goes against the fed's way of getting around the rules with money. Now a direct violation of the constitution that out weights every bail out that's ever happend is Federal Taxes, and the existence of the National Debt. Where are the threads where we're getting pissed about that and all the presidents supporting it?

To me, the conservitave side is very funny these days. They are actually brainwashing people into beliving that Obama is pushing for the will of the fed any more then Bush was, Clinton was, or first Bush was. Obama's actually trying to help us out financially, and is being VERY weak about it and not abusing his power even though he could easilly. The so called "abuses" of his power have all had our best intentions in mind.

Its not like Obama signed into the whole NAFTA thing and fucked the middle/lower class over for most jobs that were available. And its not like Obama torchured someone so that they can lie to us and send us into an endless war with no clear objectives. Its not like Obama created the national debt, or signed the Federal reserve act. Its not like Obama was the first person to do a bail out or stimulus, and just sent out the money blindly to rich people without any rules or regulations attached. Its not like Obama is the first president to embrace the Fed and not fight them.

You have to understand that Obama was given this deck of cards to play with, and he's playing it to the tune of trying to support the american people. That's all you can really ask for.

Re: It was bound to happen...
 

So instead of arguing what I've presented, you've decided to defend the Administration by pointing out where others have failed. Repeating and magnifying mistakes does not suddenly make them correct decisions nor does it invalidate the document. Even George Washington broke with the Constitution once or twice, but yet it remains.

But lets take your argument at face value, even though I disagree with the premise of it, and point out the differences:

1) Speed. I've never seen so many breaches of constitutional intent (bordering on actual violations) in so fast a time. Even Bush didn't come into office and begin rewriting the founders immediately.

2) Scope. You can argue all you like about the patriot act and whether or not water boarding is torture, but the scope of what Pres. Obama is doing is about 1,000 time greater than what Bush ever did. Bush's accused violations and stretches of constitutional law were very specific, and tended to impact non-citizens and individuals the most. As for specific amendments violated in intent, you can only point to one: the 9th, and even that is a bit murky.

Pres. Obama is rewriting how the Federal government interacts with both business and states on a grand scale, and has trounced. So while tolerated some previous jockeying with constitutional intent, and disagreed with others, it's hard not to see such a difference between the two.

Also, Bush's violations of intent did not directly affect most people or the nature of our country's economic and governmental policy on a micro level. Pres. Obama's violations of intent have, and on a level that will affect everyone.

3) Intent. Pres. Obama has stated publicly and clearly before that he disagrees with the Constitution.

Ignore the biased commentary and concentrate on what he actually says in the first half of the interview. The redistribution part in the second half is a a discussion for another day.


So why do I have a reason to believe that the actions that he has taken, so very quickly, will cease in the future and not extend even further? He essentially dismisses the Constitution. The same one he agreed to uphold. And the disagreement isn't with specifics, it's with it's ACTUAL INTENT. So no, I don't expect any of his violations to be technical violations. He knows they'd be overturned by the court (until he can appoint new SC jurists). Instead he'll use money (and how he has control of money garnered by the legislative branch is another violation of intent) to beat local governments and businesses into submission.

Game, I have never doubted that Pres. Obama believes that what he is doing is right and honorable, but once again history shows that whenever power is taken from the people it leads to further suffering regardless of good intentions. And while they have the best of intentions, they suffer from the same diseases that all "greater good" politicians suffer from: Hubris and Ignorance.

Hubris in thinking they can make better decisions from afar than those close to and directly affected by societal issues (states, municipalities, businesses, individuals); and Ignorance in refusing to acknowledge how others have failed before them attempting to achieve the same goals the same way.

Re: It was bound to happen...
 

Does it matter how fast its done? No, it just matters that its done. And please, can you give a more specific example of Obama directly breaking the law?

The problem started with the government borrowing money from people who are not in the governement. That is what should have been made illegal to start. when money is taken, all of a sudden whoever loaned it gains influence over the government's decisions. And this is an issue that's not new, nor created by Obama.

I disagree completly. The Iraq war was started because of "evidence" that was gained by torchure.. evidence that was obviously a lie. How many lives did that cost alone? How bad did that mess up america's reputation? And how much money did that cost? I mean, are you fucking kidding me?

The patriot act is just a small thing in comparision to water boarding.

There is NO comparision whatsoever between what Bush has done to this country and what Obama is doing so far. Bush has done FAR worse. Obama is is not destroying our reputation and unnessicarily killing thousands of people.

The power has been being taken from us slowly over the last 100 years. It just goes back what I first said.. The government has allowed money from other souces to influence us. You can make Obama the face of it all you want, but this is not a new issue, and he's not doing anything anyone else couldn't have and wouldn't have done.

Re: It was bound to happen...
 

I stated in my arguments that Pres. Obama hasn't directly broken the law. We've already discussed that point. He's violated the intent, and used money to do so. Thats what I mean when I say "constitutional end around". The best the law could do would be to declare some of his actions as being unconstitutional (violation of the 10th amendment) by bringing the cases to the supreme court, but his actions are not directly against the law as there is no legal precedent. As a former constitutional lawyer, Pres. Obama should know better, but unfortunately he appears to be using his knowledge of the Constitution to work against it.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Can you explain further?

I don't remember that ever happening. I know we used water boarding to get information to use in Afghanistan and after we went to Iraq, but I don't that being the reason for the invasion. I think 9/11 was the obvious reason, and the terrorists weren't exactly hiding where they were.

No, the information gained from the interrogations actually proved to be quite useful. Most people in the CIA actually claim is saved many lives in the field. It was also only used on 3 people, all non-citizens and un-uniformed combatants. You are confusing the evidence that led to the Iraq war with the information gained by interrogation for use IN the war. And please don't call it torture. Water boarding instills panic, but does not cause pain or mutilation. If you must, call it "illegal" interrogation, but to call water boarding torture cheapens the word.

If we want to get into arguments about numbers dying we can, but I don't remember this being the basis of the argument at hand. People die in war and the results of the interrogations didn't get us into the war. This is irrelevant to our argument, and we've already argued Iraq to death. Lets keep on point.

Not constitutionally, and thats what we're talking about here: The executive branch stealing power from the states and other branches on a large scale. I didn't want to bring scope into the argument, but you did when you started splitting hairs with percentages and the like when discussing the stimulus money in California, so as I stated before I argued this point on your terms. In terms of scope of bending the constitution, Pres. Obama's actions have been far more vast, and impact all Americans and not a select few.

And once again how does repeating the mistakes of others, but on a grander scale, make them suddenly acceptable? Doing more wrong makes it right? We're beginning to go in circles here, and much of the argument has gone off point, and horribly so as much of what you stated as your arguments for the evidence for Iraq are factually incorrect.

At this point I'm willing to let our arguments stand, unless you have something new to add (my first question).

Re: It was bound to happen...
 

The problem is the constitution isn't a perfect document. He is directly following the laws that have been put into it, and you know it. If more rules needed to be added to the constitution or some clarification or changes made to adjust to the issues of this time... then I can agree with that. But don't go tossing out that what he's doing is unconstitutional if it isn't.

Sure I can, but first let me quote the next part.

This quote shows your complete lack of understanding about what lead up to the war in Iraq. Which I'm going to give you a pass on since I can just educate you on it now.

First read this site: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=13307

Bush and Cheney were pushing to find a way to link Iraq to 911. And they used waterboarding to do so. They pushed to get a FALSE confession about the link. You know with torture you kinda want to say anyhting to make it stop right?

So every single man woman and child who has died due that war, died because we put to use torture. Anyone who says otherwise is full of shit, or ignorant to the facts. If someone was waterboardng you to try to get you to link Elvis prestley to watergate, you'd tell them that.

Bottom line? TORTURE DOESN'T WORK, NEVER HAS, AND NEVER WILL.

Don't let the right wing brainwash you into thinking otherwise.


As I pointed out above, yes it did.

Once again, as I pointed out before.. it has not affected even half as many people in a negitive way.

They are factually correct, once again, as stated above.

And as for repeating the same mistakes... at this point we're so deep into the pool of mistakes that I honestly don't belive it can be fixed. I don't want to go all conspiracy theory on you, but you probably need to research the federal reserve and the national debt. The fed at this point will always have the strongest influence.

I'm at work at the moment so I can't really sit and write out a whole essay, but when I have time tonight or tomorrow I'll explain how the government borrowing money from bankers was a big mistake.

Re: It was bound to happen...
 

Just wanted to correct something.. Torture does work, for getting people to say what you want them to say. But it doesn't work for getting the truth.

Re: It was bound to happen...
 

No way man. Water boarding, as unethical and shitty as it is, doesn't infringe on what I believe are rights that everyone should be entitled to. Things like the Patriot Act lead to water boarding.

Anyway, this discussion shouldn't be about water boarding or torture or 9/11. :p

Re: It was bound to happen...
 

You really don't understand the Constitution of Constitutional law at all, and I'll leave it at that. That statement simply reflects ignorance of the intent and function of the document.

Your evidence does not claim what you think it does.

Here is the info that your link used to justify the claim that water boarding was used to start the Iraq war.

Senator Levin, in commenting on the Senate Armed Services Committee report on torture declassified today, drops the following bombshell:

With last week's release of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions, it is now widely known that Bush administration officials distorted Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape "SERE" training - a legitimate program used by the military to train our troops to resist abusive enemy interrogations - by authorizing abusive techniques from SERE for use in detainee interrogations. Those decisions conveyed the message that abusive treatment was appropriate for detainees in U.S. custody. They were also an affront to the values articulated by General Petraeus.

In SERE training, U.S. troops are briefly exposed, in a highly controlled setting, to abusive interrogation techniques used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions. The techniques are based on tactics used by Chinese Communists against American soldiers during the Korean War for the purpose of eliciting false confessions for propaganda purposes. Techniques used in SERE training include stripping trainees of their clothing, placing them in stress positions, putting hoods over their heads, subjecting them to face and body slaps, depriving them of sleep, throwing them up against a wall, confining them in a small box, treating them like animals, subjecting them to loud music and flashing lights, and exposing them to extreme temperatures. Until recently, the Navy SERE school also used waterboarding. The purpose of the SERE program is to provide U.S. troops who might be captured a taste of the treatment they might face so that they might have a better chance of surviving captivity and resisting abusive and coercive interrogations.

Senator Levin then documents that SERE techniques were deployed as part of an official policy on detainees, and that SERE instructors helped to implement the interrogation programs.

The senior Army SERE psychologist warned in 2002 against using SERE training techniques during interrogations in an email to personnel at Guantanamo Bay, because:

[T]he use of physical pressures brings with it a large number of potential negative side effects... When individuals are gradually exposed to increasing levels of discomfort, it is more common for them to resist harder... If individuals are put under enough discomfort, i.e. pain, they will eventually do whatever it takes to stop the pain. This will increase the amount of information they tell the interrogator, but it does not mean the information is accurate. In fact, it usually decreases the reliability of the information because the person will say whatever he believes will stop the pain... Bottom line: the likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the delivery of accurate information from a detainee is very low. The likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the level of resistance in a detainee is very high... (p. 53).
Given that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and other high-ranking Bush officials insisted that SERE techniques used by the communists to extract false confessions be used - even after the head psychologist and others warned that it would not provide accurate information - does this mean that the torture program was geared towards obtaining false confessions?

This question is bolstered by the fact that all of the top experts on interrogation say that torture doesn't work.

And why else would the U.S. waterboard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in one month (about 6 times a day for 31 days straight)?

Aside from claim fro Senator Levin who has been pushing against the war from the beginning, where is the proof that these techniques were used to obtain false confessions? There isn't, only conjecture based on an opinion that since many believe enhanced interrogations don't work, that continuing them MUST have been to gain false evidence. Thats invented evidence created by a leap in logic and close association.

Another allegation taken from McClatchy (who are they?) never makes a link between a false confession and the Iraq war.

A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.

"While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq," Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."

Excerpts from Burney's interview appeared in a full, declassified report on a two-year investigation into detainee abuse released on Tuesday by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., called Burney's statement "very significant."

"I think it's obvious that the administration was scrambling then to try to find a connection, a link (between al Qaida and Iraq)," Levin said in a conference call with reporters. "They made out links where they didn't exist."

Levin recalled Cheney's assertions that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer had met Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, in the Czech Republic capital of Prague just months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The FBI and CIA found that no such meeting occurred.

This states that they tried to get evidence from the interrogations to point to Iraq, but failed. If you want to blame something, blame Cheyney, but it wasn't a false confession. There is NO claim beyond a Senator's opinion that the interrogations were intended to create false evidence and NO ONE of import has claimed that we went to war over the interrogations. The Senate report even contradicts the claim that they helped make the claim for the war.

So, once again, water boarding did NOT help start the Iraq war. Remember the weapons of mass destruction arguments? Thats the one that started the war, and thats the one Colin Powell brought to the UN and that the administration harped on (erroneously, as it turns out). Since water boarding is so popular in the media now, if there was strong evidence that it was used to justify the Iraq war, wouldn't that be the main argument against it across all newspapers and cable news (besides Fox)?

I think it can be fixed... at least we can avoid making it worse.

Re: It was bound to happen...
 

Prof. S, do you also think that that the National Minimum Purchase Age Act of 1984 (the one that gave reduced federal highway funds to those states with a drinking age limit of less than 21) was unconstitutional and should be repealed? I think it should be repealed. I can't say if it's unconstitutional or not.

Which makes me think, if I understand correctly that the crux of your argument is that the federal govt withholding federal money unless the state's do as they say is unconstitutional, how can that be right? I mean, isn't all money given by the federal government to the states ear-marked for some purpose or another? It's not just given willy-nilly with no intention for the money.

Re: It was bound to happen...
 

I don't know much about the act you speak of, so I won't comment too much on it. Overall, I tend to dislike any use of federal funds to influence state policy. On a personal note, I think the drinking age should be 18, not 21. If you can serve in the military and vote, you should be able to drink. There should not be two thresholds of adulthood, only one. Because the age of consent is nationalized by selective service and voting in national elections, this should be a federal issue not a state or local. I believe this issue even warrants an amendment as it goes beyond alcohol consumption.

What I will comment on is that the stimulus act was outside of normal appropriations, with the direct intent of stabilizing and inspiring the economy, not to influence state and local policy. The name of the act you state even has it's intent in the name. At best this abuse of the stimulus money is against it's publicly stated intention.

California is a complete mess, though, and I fear there will be an attempt to nationalize Cali's bonds/debt and the ramifications of this could definitely blur the lines between state and federal governments even more.

Re: It was bound to happen...
 

I guess you can chose to belive what you want.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/...ure/index.html

I belive the reason torture was brought back into play was to justify that war. Of course we'll never get the whole truth to the situation, but I think its fairly obvious that they eventually got the desired answers they were looking for. the problem was, anyone with any sense knew that the answers were unreliable (as is always the case with torture).

And I'll admit, how the article words it, they did not get reliable information from the torture. But its not reliable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRkLy...eature=related

That's a good chain of videos to look at. Especially the part where Ali Soufan gives his remarks. The only person in that hearing that takes into consideration that torture may work is Sen. Graham. Yet there isn't a shred of evidence that it worked, and a lot more evidence pointing to where it didn't.

And you don't understand that it was written by human beings, therefore its not perfect. I explained to you that the real problem is that we've fallen under a central banking system and have allowed the amount of money that we're in debt influnce decisions that are made by the state and federal governments.

First I want you to read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_debt

It'd also be helpful to understand the 6th article of the constitution.

"Smaller jurisdictions, such as cities, are usually guaranteed by their regional or national levels of government. When New York City over the 1960s declined into what would have been a bankrupt status (had it been a private entity) by the early 1970s, a "bailout" was required from New York State and the United States. In general such measures amount to merging the smaller entity's debt into that of the larger entity and thereby gaining it access to the lower interest rates the large one enjoys. The larger entity may then assume some agreed-upon oversight in order to prevent recurrence of the problem."

Here's the base of the problem when it comes to going in debt. The person who loans (or even gives) you the money has the right to know that the money is spent for the reasons it was loaned for. If you can't agree to the terms that came with accepting the money, then its your responceability not to take it.

I belive that California put themselves into this situation by making bad decisions, and I don't have an issue whatsoever with the feds overseeing the money that was given to the state. I live in california, it makers no sense how many state workers have been fired and who have had to take a 10%+ pay cut when the government is giving us billions.

To only push for what 1% is doing is being overly reasonable if you ask me.

I think the base disagreement we have on this issue is that you belive that the current administration is the source of the problem.. while I belive that circumstances both caused by the state itself, and by broken financial policies of the past is what the problem is.

The fact still remains that Obama isn't breaking the law, and the agreement of California taking that money had to have included some ability for the federal government to oversee it and make sure that it was used for the purpose that it was intended. Our 5 month old president didn't get california into the predicament to where they had to accept such terms.

In other words (to sum it up), the Federal government wasn't the one to take the state's power. It was the state's that compromised their own power by agreeing to take the money. It was the state's decision to agree to it, and it was the state's fault they got into such bad shape.

Re: It was bound to happen...
 

Woah, when did everyone become constitutional law scholars? ;)

Re: It was bound to happen...
 

My comments were based on the fact that it's very difficult for anyone to say: "Hey, he broke the constitution! Arrest him!" Thats not how it works. The Constitution was based on natural law, not human law. It is a list of what the government MAY do, not what it may not do, and it's terribly vague and short.

The Bill of Rights lists what the government MAY NOT do, and it is also terribly vague.

So when it happens that government institutions do things that may be against the Constitution, you can't arrest anyone or make 100% positive statements, but a case must be made are argued in front of the judicial branch. It's the checks and balances that keep any one branch from overpowering the others.

It's also why I think it remains probably the finest governmental document ever created, because it continues to be under interpretation and can grow and reform itself as society does. But there are thresholds that must be met for the document to change. The document's PERFECTION is that it can be changed by the will of the people, but cannot be changed because any one small group DICTATES it. This is why changes must voted on by 2/3's of both houses, a constitutional convention or by 3/4's of the states legislatures. This maintains that it is a will of the people, not a party, that rules our nation.

Not some arbitrary dictate from the executive branch. But once again, we don't know whether these actions are or are not truly constitutional. A case will have to be made and argued for that to happen.


Game, you cite the NY case, but read the last sentence:

"The larger entity may then assume some agreed-upon oversight in order to prevent recurrence of the problem"

I don't believe this was agreed upon, I believe the state was sold a false bill of goods and then essentially was threatened with sanctions when the new terms of how their state was to be run were thrust upon them. There was NOTHING I can see in the stimulus plan that the executive branch would be able to dictate budgetary decisions of states who accept the money.

I think the rest of our discussion can rest as it stands.