Text 20880, 166 rader
Skriven 2008-09-15 13:13:33 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 20851 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
Ärende: Things Change         2/
================================
15 Sep 08 10:41, Lee Lofaso wrote to Roy Witt:


 >>>> Continued from previous message

 >> LL>But in times of national emergency, it is the president who almost
 >> LL>always gets his way, with the congress going along with almost
 >> LL>everything the president wants.

 RW>> Wrong again.

 LL> The sinking of the Lusitania.  WWI.  Woodrow Wilson got his way.

By virtue of the Congress declaring war.

 LL> Pearl Harbor.  WWII.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt got his way.

By virtue of the Congress declaring war. They were under no obligation to
declare war, and doing so had plenty of opposition. As usual, the majority
got its way by voting to declare war. The President could only ask that
they do as he wanted, he couldn't force them to do it.

 LL> 9-11.  WWIII (War on Terror).  George W. Bush got his way.

There hasn't been a WW3 declared. Afganistan and Iraq are police actions,
supported by the Congress' willingness to pass legislation to pay for it.
If they had any balls (I know Pelozi doesn't) they'd stop paying for the
war, if they're so against it.

However, there must be some other compelling arguement against that to
make them continue, even when they're unwilling...

 LL> There are other minor instances, such as LBJ's escalation of
 LL> the conflict in Vietnam.

Nixon escalated the bombing, not LBJ.

 RW>> Since Harry Truman, the legislative branches and the President have
 RW>> had a few head butts, but things get done according to common sense.

 LL> During five of the past seven years, neither the president nor the
 LL> Congress did much of anything according to common sense.

Depends<tm> on your point of view. The President did the right thing in
taking the fight to the terrorists and the Congress did also, by passing
legislation to pay for it. Had they done nothing, 9-11 would be merely a
note in the history of repeated attacks on the US.

 RW>> That is until lately, when the legislative body has done nothing to
 RW>> help the country.

 LL> During the past two years the Congress has tried to reel the
 LL> president in, with some limited success.

Too bad they didn't look at their own problems. We might have gotten
something worthwhile done for the people.

 LL>  With a new Democratic president, and a more heavily Democratic
 LL> Congress, there will be unlimited success.

In tearing down the country by doing nothing.

 RW>> In fact, the Congress is so disliked by America, their low
 RW>> percentage numbers (9%) are four times lower than the lame duck,
 RW>> outgoing President's 35%.

 LL> George W. Bush's latest approval rating is a measely 28%,

Which is three times higher than the liberally led Congress. Nancy Pelozi
and Harry Read combined don't have an approval rating to ensure a
re-election, if they're up for re-election.

 LL>  the lowest approval rating in history.

Actually, Jimmy Carter's was lower. And we all know how questions can be
worded to show several different outcomes. So, polls mean nothing unless
they're conducted by someone without an agenda.

 >> RW>Federal law provides a variety of powers for the President to use
 >> in
 >> RW>response to crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances
 >> threatening
 >> RW>the nation.

 >> RW>Moreover, they are not limited to military or war situations.

 >> LL>A president can declare a national emergency exists, whether it is
 >> LL>real or imagined, and basically do whatever the hell he wants.

 RW>> Except remain in office beyond his term limits.

 LL> The president can declare martial law and suspend elections, thus
 LL> remaining in office indefinitely.

Wrong...

 >> RW>Some of these authorities, deriving from the Constitution or
 >> RW>statutory law, are continuously available to the President with
 >> RW>little or no qualification.

 >> LL>A president can make something up and people will believe him.

 RW>> But he will not remain in office beyond his term limits, even if
 RW>> they want him to stay.

 LL> The president can remain in office indefinitely, regardless of what
 LL> anybody else says or thinks.

Wrong.

 >> RW>Other-statutory delegations from Congress exist on a standby
 >> RW>basis and remain dormant until the President formally declares
 >> RW>a national emergency.

 >> LL>And with no real power to oppose whatever a president wants to do,

 RW>> Legislative bodies make the laws, remember?

 LL> And the president gets to choose which laws he/she wishes to enforce,
 LL> remember?

Wrong.

 RW>> If they want to, by a 75% majority, remove him from office by force,
 RW>> if need be.

 LL> When a president declares martial law, the president IS the law.

Wrong.

 LL> And there is no way to remove the president from office short of
 LL> lining him up in front of a firing squad and having him shot.
 LL> IOW, it would take a coup d'etat.

Wrong.


 >> LL>virtually all congresscritters go along with the prez in whatever
 >> he
 >> LL>chooses to do.  The Patriot Act comes to mind, and other
 >> legislation
 >> LL>passed just after the events of 9-11.

 RW>> Thank you for admitting that Congress is the culprit to blame for
 RW>> the Patriot Act.

 LL> The Congress is partially to blame.  But not totally, given it was
 LL> the president's idea.

Wrong.

 RW>> The President merely went along with it by signing it into law.

 LL> The Congress gave the president what he wanted.  Which is what I said
 LL> would happen in any national emergency (whether real or contrived).

 >>>> Continued to next message

Don't bother. Corrected you too many times to want any more of your tripe.

                R\%/itt



--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)