Republican Primaries (3 Viewers)

[cosmo kramer]

martin bryant has an iq of 63 as well as aspergers syndrome

 

[funkshen]

so excellent a king, that was to this hyperion to a satyr

 

[Garygaz]

martin bryant has an iq of 63 as well as aspergers syndrome

are you one of the conspiracy theorists on the whole incident?

 

[cosmo kramer]

are you one of the conspiracy theorists on the whole incident?

no not at all is it really hard tob elieve that a mentally subnormal autist without any sense of empathy and a completely awful life where nobody liked him and he had no friends at all could kill a bunch of people?

 

[cosmo kramer]

bryant was a wacko the only person who could stand him was some nutjob lottery winner who he inherited heaps of money from he used all of this money to buy outlandishly flamboyant costumes and just fly from country to country not so he could visit them but so he could talk to people sitting next to him on the plane who had no choice to talk to him

 

[boris]

hahaahh fuck

 

[Blastus]

bryant was a wacko the only person who could stand him was some nutjob lottery winner who he inherited heaps of money from he used all of this money to buy outlandishly flamboyant costumes and just fly from country to country not so he could visit them but so he could talk to people sitting next to him on the plane who had no choice to talk to him

Best thing I have read in weeks

 

[alstah]

holy shit, can you quit wanking all over the constitution? you are making a mess everywhere.

i have quite clearly provided you with the declared opinion and thus precedent of a chief justice of the supreme court, an opinion that has not been challenged. constitutional practice supersedes constitutional meaning. this is a core principle of constitutionalism in the US and if you disagree with this, you disagree with the constitution you are spritzing all over. james madison agrees with this if that means anything to you.

you have not processed my point about the problem of indeterminate language in the constitution. you can have your own opinion on the (lack of) indeterminate language of the constitution, but unfortunately it has no currency with anyone at all, so you're on your own. in regards to war, the supreme court has consistently dismissed questions regarding the legitimate use of armed forces by the president, arising from indeterminate constitutional language, as 'political' in nature. this means that such legitimacy is determined in negotiation and deliberation between the executive and the legislature. and what has this produced? the War Powers Resolution of 1973, something you clearly cannot comprehend, that was the result of shitty and indeterminate constitutional language. the president has the authority to commit US forces to war but must consult with congress within 48 hours of doing so. he then has 30 days, and a de facto extra 30 days with which these forces can remain committed without congressional approval. after 60 days, whether approval has failed to be delivered or the action has been disapproved, forces must be withdrawn.

the problem with this act is that neither war nor consultation are well properly defined by and it therefore cannot be considered adequately binding. it is unfortunately as indeterminate as the constitution it aimed to improve upon. for instance, clinton's commitment of forces in Kosovo, 1999 was not declared to be the commitment of forces to war and thus congress was not even duly consulted in accordance with the resolution. and you will find that the obama administration was more than prepared to invoke collective defense if a UN-mandated no-fly zone was aggressively breached by libyan belligerents. the problem here is therefore not the president or the constitution but the US being party to treaties (the decision of the congress), and in particular the changing nature of the NATO treaty from a collective defense organisation to a collective security organisation (of western imperialism!!!!!!!!111).

James Madison (in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, April 2, 1798) stated that, “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. Therefore, the constitution with studied care, has vested the power to declare war in the Legislature.”

James Madison also said, ". . . The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature . . . the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war." (1793.)

I don't care how the judge interpreted the (lack of) indeterminate language of the constitution. I care what the author of it, and the founding fathers of America had to say about the president (not) having the ability to wage war. On the basis of THIS, it is completely unconstitutional.

Alexander Hamilton, one of America's first constitutional lawyers, stated, "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. . . . It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and Admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and the raising and regulating of fleets and armies, -- all of which by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." (1788)

In the case of United States v. Smith, 1806 (the first precedent relating to war in the constitution), William Paterson, the Supreme Court Justice, concluded: ". . . It is the exclusive province of congress to change a state of peace into a state of war."

Under the legal principle of Stare decisis, this precedent and decision supersedes any other in relation to the executive having any right to wage war.

Thomas Jefferson, in 1805 when addressing congress, stated, "Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force in any degree which could be avoided."

Also, if you want to go further than this, the Founding Father of The United States of America, the Commander-in-chief, The GENERAL OF THE ARMIES (the highest possible officer rank of the United States Army), stated: "The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure." (1793.)

Furthermore, James Wilson, A leading legal theorist, one of the six original justices appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court of the United States, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, who was asigner of the United States Declaration of Independence and was a major force in drafting the United States Constitution, stated clearly: "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large. . . ." James Wilson said this on September 17, 1787, to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, when the constitution was RATIFIED by conventions in each U.S. state in the name of "The People".

I don't give a shit about the (lack of) indeterminate language of the constitution. Don't go all Roland Barthes on me. This is explicit. If you fail to see at least now that the executive has no right in waging war and it is the sole responsibility of the legislature, you are a bloody idiot.

According to the War Powers Resolution, The President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress (instead of a declaration of war) or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." However, if you did more research on the War Powers Resolution, you'll find its use of the legislative veto may be considered a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers and hence, it is widely critised (even by US Presidents), as being unconstitutional.

Also, *slightly* off topic, but look up The Defense Authorization Act / Amendment 1064

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkEPcrTSHdA


There is a reason the Framers were so worried about granting the president the power to initiate wars—even teensy little unanticipated emergency wars—and granted that power to the people who would fight them instead. Abraham Lincoln put it this way: "Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions." The Constitution assumed a congressional branch capable of pushing back against a king. The War Powers Resolution 1973 has downgraded that to a congressional branch able to "consult meaningfully" with a king. The Framers would say that's a step in the wrong direction.

In regards to NATO, you are just plain wrong. If Britain and France invaded Libya and faced retaliation, that would not invoke article 5 of the NATO resolution. The proof of this is in the Suez War of 1956. If a NATO ally wishes to be an aggressor and invade a sovereign state who has not attacked them and subsequently, their forces face retaliation during the invasion of that sovereign state, it is not covered by NATO!

pretty much the rest of what you said is retarded though. the eisenhower analogy is not coherent or consistent and should be recognised as the cheap political trick it is. the US is now in a completely different situation and you are seeing (making/regurgitating) patterns where none exist. i of course concede there are similarities, and more important, their irrelevance. it is entirely fallacious to use the post-WWII economy as evidence as you have noted but insist on doing anyways. indeed this is a terrible anecdote because ike presided over a gross expansion of federal government and a whole new war. indeed, you admit that the US will be propelled into another recession.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZXamxPImF0

your point about the fed is retarded. ronny p might audit the fed but he can't magic it away, so i fail to see your point.

If you read what I said: (in regards to the FED):

"The constitution mentions nothing about what agencies of government the president can audit, acquire findings and consequently propose to the congress to get rid of, which I imagine what a libertarian President Ron Paul would do."

your quote is irrelevant. i don't have my mind made up, but you are a mindless thrall.

You obviously have your mind made up, if you're saying that quote is irrelevant...It's only irrelevant because you want it to be irrelevant, because of your subjectivity and bias. I advise you read it again, with an open mind (that Ron Paul capitalism quote). It's relevant because it directly shows how the FED screws capitalism and the economy...

 

[funkshen]

this guy.

you have not addressed the fact that a principle of constitutional law in the US is that constitutional practice liquidates constitutional meaning. indeed you have written off the declared opinion of a fucking chief justice (did you even read it? it has nothing to do with indeterminate language per se). but how could the constitution even subject to different interpretations? this arises from the indeterminacy of constitutional language - it is necessarily so - and therefore practice can diverge from meaning. indeed, you have demonstrated the indeterminacy of constitutional language in citing the Framers, among others, whose declared opinions assuage the indeterminacy of constitutional language and form the basis of the framers' intent interpretation. you have not addressed or disproved the indeterminacy though. like it or not, a textualist or framers' intent interpretations (of which yours is an incoherent mix) are NOT the only way the constitution is interpreted. the fact is, the constitution and constitutional practice are an argument. an excellent example of this is the reapportionment act of 1929, that is clearly unconstitutional from a precedent or framer's intent perspective. there is therefore no reason to believe that a strict originalist perspective is correct by definition, just as there is no reason to believe a living constitution perspective is correct by definition (so your endless quotes from founding fathers are redundant).

also, the argument over the constitutionality of the war powers resolution has resoundingly been in begrudging favour of its constitutionality.

your point about stare decisis is moot. i have not, nor has anyone argued, that the president has the authority to change a state of peace to a state of war, and indeed this remains the case (indeed there is confusion/argument among constitutional scholars about the problematic nature of congress' power to 'declare' war). your george washington quote is also an example of the demonstrable inadequacy of framers' intentions due to indeterminate language ('offensive' 'expedition' 'of importance': legislature and executive must deliberate on these terms, the judiciary cannot as I have mentioned). the crux of the matter is that it is up to deliberation between the legislature and executive over how what constitutes a changed state of peace or war, what constitutes hostilities, and what exceptions there are. congress has not mustered the will to do so as of yet. but the war powers resolution demonstrates that it definitely has that power, and responsibility. indeed, it is very likely that it will one day re-examine the authority of the executive in deploying armed forces. until that time, shut the fuck up about the illegality or unconstitutional nature of and decrying unilateral presidential action.

i am not wrong about NATO. first of all, NATO was implementing a no-fly zone mandated by the UN. this was a similar issue in bosnia and later kosovo. congress has failed to decide that this is a considered a changed state of peace or war. indeed, these actions are likened to embargoes and diplomatic sanctions. obama's reasoning at the 60 day mark to congress that because US forces were deferred to NATO command, that congressional authorisation was not needed, is pushing the limits. this is evidenced by congress rebuking obama. so why don't they impeach him? to say it is because he's the WORLDS MOST POWERFUL MAN is glib and idiotic.

look, i'm not saying that presidential unilateralism is a good thing. but it is up to congress to take action, not only on war powers, but also on the fed (for it is they who established it!). if they never do, you can hardly blame a president for acting otherwise.

p.s. we're not fucking talking about capitalism that's why your quote was retarded. i never even disagreed with it. regardless, a drone accusing someone else of subjectivity and bias, o k guy

edit: just realised you're the guy who argues god======energy. it all makes sense now.

 

[cosmo kramer]

 

[Lentern]

And Cain has left the show http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011...reports_gop_contender_had_13_year_affair.html .
Romney's position is now virtually unassailable, there remain but one choice now for conservatives who don't want Romney. Go forth compromise candidate Newt!

 

[scuba_steve2121]

have to be a conservative first, I don't see one in that photo

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Mr Republican

 

[Lentern]

Mr Republican

That video doesn't address the issue at all, Ron Paul might well be the best equipped man to head the US government but his standing amongst voters and influential powerbrokers is virtually nill. He is not a contender. The Newt might not have a huge fan base of his own but most of the party can tolerate him.

 

[Azure]

In my opinion Ron Paul is one of the last true statesmen left.

 

[Chemical Ali]

[youtube]MXCZVmQ74OA[/youtube]

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY VOTE

 

[scuba_steve2121]

That video doesn't address the issue at all, Ron Paul might well be the best equipped man to head the US government but his standing amongst voters and influential powerbrokers is virtually nill. He is not a contender. The Newt might not have a huge fan base of his own but most of the party can tolerate him.

was just addressing your point that Newt Gingrich is a conservative which he ain't and that there wasn't a conservative on that stage for people to turn to

 

[Azure]

[youtube]MXCZVmQ74OA[/youtube]

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY VOTE

Words cannot describe how I am feeling after watching that masterpiece.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Mr republican

 

[cosmo kramer]

demonRATS got 666 votes at the last election hail obama our semi negro dark lord