quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Of course not. Of course, you're the one making slanderous accusations without proof, not me.
Here we go again Dag. I refuse to argue with you about the Lay case. I am entitled to my opinions. You can call that slander if you want to. I call it freedom of speech.
*looks around* *fails to see where he did anything to infringe Silkie's freedom of speech*
You are entitled to your opinion. I've never said otherwise. But if you post them here, I am entitled to discuss them.
Your analysis of the likelihood of Bush pardoning Lay is based on absolutely not evidence. Your insinuation that the length of time it's taken to bring Lay to trial is based on Lay's connection to the Bush administration is similarly baseless and, in fact, contradicts a wealth of well-known factors which contribute to lengthy prosecution of complex crimes.
Sure, you're entitled to your opinions. And I'm entitled to post responses to them.
You're also entitled to refuse to argue with me and to refuse my repeated requests for evidence. Fine with me - it just makes it clearer how little support you actually have for your position.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Having ANY one party or group in control of two or three branches of government defeats that purpose, and undermines our constitution.
This has nothing to do with the unitary theory whatsoever.
Having the Republicans in charge of both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch has been a 'rubber stamp' government, rather than checks and balances. Correct me if I am wrong - like I have to ask - but Bush has NEVER used his veto power. He hasn't had to, since everything approved is party line, with a Republican majority in the congress. Unitary theory is not being questioned, and his many Executive Orders have been ignored, until relatively recently. If Clinton had done some of this what do you think the result would have been?
quote:
quote:I don't believe Bush has the executive right to amend laws at his whim, as he did with the recent McCain Bill, for instance. We are not a Monarchy. He is not a dictator. He is supposed to administer the law, not MAKE the law. If he doesn't like the law then it is his responsibility to introduce legislation to change the law, or in the case of the McCain Bill, to not SIGN it, but to veto it.
That's not what he did at all.
While many presidents have 'interpreted' their view of a law when they sign them by adding a statement, Bush essentially wrote, " I will authorize torture if I think we need to do it" overruling the new law. What he SHOULD have done was to veto it, if he didn't agree with it. He invoked Executive priviledge: Unitary theory.
quote:
quote: I don't agree with the Unitary Theory side.
There are many non-unitary formulations that support such actions.
That is irrelevant. We are discussing Unitary theory and executive priviledge.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Having the Republicans in charge of both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch has been a 'rubber stamp' government, rather than checks and balances. Correct me if I am wrong - like I have to ask - but Bush has NEVER used his veto power. He hasn't had to, since everything approved is party line, with a Republican majority in the congress. Unitary theory is not being questioned, and his many Executive Orders have been ignored, until relatively recently.
And, once again, what does that have to do with the unitary theory. Unitary theory has nothing to do with different branches being controlled by different parties. It has nothing to do with whether or not the President uses his veto.
quote:If Clinton had done some of this what do you think the result would have been?
I cannot believe you had the audacity to bring up Clinton in a conversation in which you are speculating about a President giving a last minute pardon to a corrupt oil trader. Irony, anyone?
BTW, Clinton's administration asserted the right of the executive to intercept international calls in which one party was a U.S. citizen within the United States for the purposes of foreign intelligence. So we know what the result would have been had Clinton done some of this.
quote:While many presidents have 'interpreted' their view of a law when they sign them by adding a statement, Bush essentially wrote, " I will authorize torture if I think we need to do it" overruling the new law. What he SHOULD have done was to veto it, if he didn't agree with it. He invoked Executive priviledge: Unitary theory.
First, that's not executive privilege. Executive privilege has to do with the right of the President and his advisors to refrain from answering questions under oath in certain situations.
Second, almost every single legal scholar, unitary theorist or not, recognizes some form of executive privilege.
quote:That is irrelevant. We are discussing Unitary theory and executive priviledge.
First, it's not irrelevant. If both unitary and non-unitary theories of executive power can have result X, then the existence of result X is not evidence that a unitary theory is being implemented.
Second, I have been attempting to discuss unitary theory. It has become more and more evident with each of your posts that you are discussing something else.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Silkie: Bush hasn't used his veto even when he's given significant public opposition to a bill. Its a political move he uses (and used in Texas with a Democratic state legislature) -- don't veto anything and use "I signed . . . " to rebut just about anything during a campaign.
The Senate in particular, Democrats and Republicans both, has given Bush considerable opposition. Several of his major legislative initiatives have been completely scrapped due to this and other opposition.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
*looks around* *fails to see where he did anything to infringe Silkie's freedom of speech*
You are a student prosecutor. You know more about how slowly the wheels of justice grind. I have no experience with the courts.
As for the delay, I have agreed that there are valid reasons for the length of time it has taken, and my opinion is that Lay's treatment is also because money and power are involved, and because he has friends in power. You can call me a cynic, but please don't say I am slandering the Olympians we are watching. We both probably don't know the half of it.
We are looking at the same evidence, and seeing different things. Two people look at a glass of water. One sees half full, the other sees half empty. Same facts. I cannot prove my opinion with facts Dag.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have agreed that there are valid reasons for the length of time it has taken, and my opinion is that Lay's treatment is also because money and power are involved, and because he has friends in power.
How does this statement even make sense? If there are valid reasons for the delay, then he hasn't received special treatment.
quote:You can call me a cynic, but please don't say I am slandering the Olympians we are watching.
You see, you get to decide what you say. I get to decide what I say. You seem to have no problem accusing Bush of some pretty serious crimes. I have no problem accusing you of slander in return.
quote:We are looking at the same evidence, and seeing different things. Two people look at a glass of water. One sees half full, the other sees half empty. Same facts. I cannot prove my opinion with facts Dag.
Some people might consider the inability to prove them a reason not publish incredibly insulting statements.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Second, I have been attempting to discuss unitary theory. It has become more and more evident with each of your posts that you are discussing something else.
Ok, explain to me what Unitary Theory is (in short words so I will understand) and when you do that please tell me specifically how all of that was not about Unitary Theory.
From your own post on the subject:
quote:The "unitary" theory asserts that all executive authority must be in the President's hands, without exception.
This is a simple explanation of the theory, although there are many subtle variations possible from that basic starting point.
It's about executive power. The power to pass laws is legislative power. Except for the veto, that power rests with Congress. Your mention of the veto is absolutely irrelevant. The unitary theory is taking a side in a dispute about what powers the President posseses. No one disputes that the President has the power to veto or not veto what he wishes.
Your mention of single-party government is also irrelevant. The unitary theory is a theory of constitutional law. It is not a political theory about divided government.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Second, I have been attempting to discuss unitary theory. It has become more and more evident with each of your posts that you are discussing something else.
Ok, explain to me what Unitary Theory is (in short words so I will understand) and when you do that please tell me specifically how all of that was not about Unitary Theory.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we bring this topic back to life with a new focus?
I would like to hear from all you slippery Slopers, and all you anti-slippery slopers.
They way I see it, we can never have a decent argument anymore about little issues because on the one side you have a bunch of cautious people who yell 'AAHHHH slippery slope.' On the other side is an equally defensive faction saying, 'ahhhhh stop saying that, it never happened, slippery slopes are your imagination.'
Its a funny thought, but the SS argument is indefensible because if it IS a genuine SS and a policy DOES cause your right to be impinged (as has happened countless times in our past no doubt) then the slope has been slipped, and everybody acknowledges the policy as an out and out "Mistake." Or even a Slip or Fall, but not a slippery slope, because it it behind us, like a cliff we just tumbled off of.
On the other hand, the anti-SS people are also incapable of defending themselves for similar reasons: if someone says "we have an SS" and you say, "no it isn't you tard, it'll be fine, we aren't all idiots," then nothing comes of the possible SS, then you are proven right.
If we don't FALL down the SS, then it wasn't there. If we DO FALL down the SS, then it was a clear mistake, and we go back and rewrite history and remake all the decisions with 20/20 hindsight and say "Of course this was just stupid"
So basically the "Slippery Slope" is like Murphy's Law. Whatever Can go wrong will go wrong, and in the worst possible way. But telling what CAN go wrong is not as easy as the ANTI-SS people think. Nor will EVERY slipper situation decline into Baby-smothering (or other delightful scenarios) as the SS people will warn.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, how exactly is this seeing shades of gray?
quote:Originally posted by Silkie: [quote]Of course Lay's longtime close ties to the current administration - Bush campaigned using an Enron corporate jet in his first campaign - have nothing to do with that.
The little at the end carries the clear impression that what you are saying is so obviously true that no reasonable person could disagree.
It's clear you dont' think of this as just an "opinion," since you took the effort to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, your loyalty to the current President's honor is admirable, even though I do not agree with you. My opinion of the Players in this drama does not change the facts in this discussion, though it does reflect my point of view... Just as your conclusions are colored by your point of view and opinions, even though they are based on the same facts.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The "unitary" theory asserts that all executive authority must be in the President's hands, without exception.
This is a simple explanation of the theory, although there are many subtle variations possible from that basic starting point.
It's about executive power. The power to pass laws is legislative power. Except for the veto, that power rests with Congress. Your mention of the veto is absolutely irrelevant. The unitary theory is taking a side in a dispute about what powers the President posseses. No one disputes that the President has the power to veto or not veto what he wishes.
Your mention of single-party government is also irrelevant. The unitary theory is a theory of constitutional law. It is not a political theory about divided government.
Taking my Veto comment out of context changes the meaning of what I actually said.
quote:My statement: While many presidents have 'interpreted' their view of a law when they sign them by adding a statement, Bush essentially wrote, " I will authorize torture if I think we need to do it" overruling the new law. What he SHOULD have done was to veto it, if he didn't agree with it. He invoked Executive priviledge: Unitary theory.
This is an example of Unitary Theory being used, instead of proper procedure. Proper procedure (non-Unitary) for the President to change or disagree with a Bill as written would have been a Presidential Veto. The congress could have then overturned that Veto with a 2/3 majority voting to pass the Bill and overruling the President, or the Bill would not have passed the second time. The reason that is proper procedure is because that would be respecting the Authority of Congress to Legislate the law, and there is a standard procedure for the President to disagree with any Law that is passed: Veto.
Writing notes on the Bill saying in essence 'my decision on whether to use Torture is the final word no matter what this law says' is using Unitary Theory to modify Legislation, and that usurps/bypasses Legislative Authority. As an administrator, the Prez's executive authority responsibility as written in teh Constitution would be to administer that law as written, or to follow standard procedure for disagreeing with the Law as written (Veto it) NOT to arbitrarily change that Legislation (Unitary Theory ) rather than administering it as written.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Can we bring this topic back to life with a new focus?
I would like to hear from all you slippery Slopers, and all you anti-slippery slopers.
--- So basically the "Slippery Slope" is like Murphy's Law. Whatever Can go wrong will go wrong, and in the worst possible way. But telling what CAN go wrong is not as easy as the ANTI-SS people think. Nor will EVERY slipper situation decline into Baby-smothering (or other delightful scenarios) as the SS people will warn.
Thank you for stepping into this discussion Orincoro. I would LOVE to discuss the topic with more than one person. I'm among the Slippery Slopers. *grin* Not a surprise eh?
I believe we are treading on dangerous ground, and that our Republic is in danger: there is quicksand around here somewhere.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag doesn't have a particular loyalty to the current President's honor, he just thinks your position is remarkably indefensible and undefended; I find myself agreeing.
When Bush pardons Lay, feel free to crow, but until he does, don't act like any reasonable person knows he will.
His remark on your talk of veto is correct. Whether or not the President used a signing statement is irrelevant; there exist almost no laws that do not require not insignificant interpretation in order to "execute". That the President can issue signing statements is generally accepted by unitary theorists and non-unitary theorists alike. It is in no way a bypass of the veto by its nature, in large part because it is nothing more than an exceptionally formal statement of intent; it does not actually modify the law in question one iota.
Now, Bush, in the signing statement in question, says that he is going to interpret the law consistent with (among other things) unitary presidential power. This is not an application of unitary theory, this is a statement that he might later apply unitary theory.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, your loyalty to the current President's honor is admirable, even though I do not agree with you.
It's clear you haven't read my posts. You did this in the threads on the surveillance, too - saying I approved of the President's actions, or even that I thought them constitutional, when I had not decided.
This is a tired old progression on Hatrack. Someone makes an accusation against Bush. I challenge the accusation, usually on factual grounds. Next thing I'm being told I'm loyal to Bush, or I think he can do no wrong.
quote:My opinion of the Players in this drama does not change the facts in this discussion, though it does reflect my point of view. As your conclusions are colored by your point of view and opinions, even though they are based on the same facts.
Many of the opinions you have expressed in this thread do not demonstrate even an acknowledgement of the facts - even when you do acknowledge the facts, you proceed to ignore them in reiterating your accusations.
quote:Taking my Veto comment out of context changes the meaning of what I actually said.
That wasn't the veto comment I was referring to. I was referring to your comment that Bush has never used the veto. And it's not relevant to a discussion of the unitary theory, just as single-party government isn't relevant.
quote:I would LOVE to discuss the topic with more than one person.
If you wish to discuss the topic of the unitary theory, I would suggest 1.) starting it off with an article that doesn't make an implied slanderous accusation against the president 2.) not expressing eyerolling disdain for those who don't buy your slanderous accusations, 3.) discussing the actual theory rather than grouping a bunch of complaints about the Bush administration into an inaccurate heading, and 4.) not making slanderous accusations yourself.
You turned this from a discussion of a legal theory of a specific constitutional issue to a "Silkie gets to make stuff up about the President" thread. When you do something like that, don't be surprised if people challenge you on it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is a tired old progression on Hatrack. Someone makes an accusation against Bush. I challenge the accusation, usually on factual grounds. Next thing I'm being told I'm loyal to Bush, or I think he can do no wrong.
Well, in all fairness, Dag, I CAN understand why people feel that way: I've never seen you correct someone's praise of Bush.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a difference between offering your own opinion on an issue -- which I've seen you do on those topics, Dag -- and deliberately targeting and shutting down someone else's opinion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you've seen me offer a differing opinion on those subjects, then you've almost assuredly seen my responses to those posters who target people who want to make the full protection of criminal due process available to all American citizens and then call them traitors or accuse them of wanting America to lose the war on terror.
It's a cheap tactic to avoid dealing with what's being said, whether it's done to attack or support Bush, and it's all too common around here.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Silkie, honey, believe me when I say that I share your frustration with this administration. Frankly, they terrify me. I think that there is a culture of valueing personal loyalty rather than either competence of integrity. And I think that surrounding yourself with people who aren't going to say "no" give you a sense of entitlement. The country's fear after 9/11 made us look for strength and results rather than ideals and due attention to the process.
But I think that you are mistaking Dagonee's (not that I want to speak for him) admirable attention to process in discussion here, his careful outlining of legal vs non-legal, and his disinclination to express judgments without actual facts as an implicit approval of the President. I don't think we have enough evidence to make that judgement.
I also think that we best serve our position by understanding exactly what we are talking about. This means getting information from a variety of sources. Dagonee is a pretty great source of information whether or not we agree with him. As a matter of fact the best sources are often ones with which we disagree.
Also we should make big contributions to the ACLU.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: There's a difference between offering your own opinion on an issue -- which I've seen you do on those topics, Dag -- and deliberately targeting and shutting down someone else's opinion.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Silkie, honey, believe me when I say that I share your frustration with this administration. Frankly, they terrify me. I think that there is a culture of valueing personal loyalty rather than either competence of integrity. And I think that surrounding yourself with people who aren't going to say "no" give you a sense of entitlement. The country's fear after 9/11 made us look for strength and results rather than ideals and due attention to the process.
But I think that you are mistaking Dagonee's (not that I want to speak for him) admirable attention to process in discussion here, his careful outlining of legal vs non-legal, and his disinclination to express judgments without actual facts as an implicit approval of the President. I don't think we have enough evidence to make that judgement.
I also think that we best serve our position by understanding exactly what we are talking about. This means getting information from a variety of sources. Dagonee is a pretty great source of information whether or not we agree with him. As a matter of fact the best sources are often ones with which we disagree.
Also we should make big contributions to the ACLU.
Thank you kmboots. I agree, the current administration and their actions are very scary.
I agree that Dagonee is a good source of information. I have learned some interesting things in his posts. The difficulty I have in my exchanges with Dagonee is that somehow I come out of that arena feeling bloodied. It seems that the actual subject that we are discussing gets waylaid by a critique of my opinions rather than an actual discussion of the subject.
Just saying "you are wrong" --- without a few SPECIFIC concrete compare and contrast examples of what Dagonee considers to BE the use of Unitary Theory --- is useless. All I am asking for is a discussion. I don't like this feeling of having been smashed to smithereens.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps the reason you feel "smashed to smithereens" is because you did NOT simply offer an opinion. You leveled an accusation. Perhaps you don't realize there's a difference, so I will give an example:
Opinion: I disagree with the present Bush administration policy because . . .
Accusation: President Bush is personally guilty of criminally undermining the justice system in regards to the Lay case, and in the future he will further ignore the laws of justice by abusing his constitutional pardoning power.
Dagonee wasn't attacking your opinion. He was pointing out that your accusation of criminal activity was without merit.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree that Dagonee is a good source of information. I have learned some interesting things in his posts. The difficulty I have in my exchanges with Dagonee is that somehow I come out of that arena feeling bloodied. It seems that the actual subject that we are discussing gets waylaid by a critique of my opinions rather than an actual discussion of the subject.
Quit whining. You come out feeling bloodied because you come in making ignorant accusations and statements, and the subject is discussed-you can re-read this thread to see-but your opinion of the subject-at least in this particular case-has its ignorance exposed.
As for Dagonee not going "out hunting" so to speak for pro-Bush opinions to shut down...possibly he feels that particular hunting ground is overcrowded.
I can sympathize. I oppose Bush's stance on homosexual marriages, the way in which we went into Iraq, and his spending policies...but it's not as if those particular beliefs aren't heard around here.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I probably agree with your opinions, but in these kinds of discussion we have to argue actual facts. I an discussion of the Unitary Theory it might be helpful to talk about the history of regulatory agencies - have they been under the executive branch? Are they now? When were the various agencies formed and by whom?
We might ask about what Judge Alito has actually said about the theory or about his rulings on issues close to it.
You could discuss how our two party, winner-take-all system of politics erodes checks and balances when the executive and the legislative branches are the same party and the parties are this polarized.
You could talk of your concerns about the personal relationships between big business, money, and the people who make ans enforce the laws. This would be better than hypothetical "what he might have done if" scenarios.
Your waving a red flag to alert us to the dangers of this administration is admirable and necessary. We just have to have actual evidence that the bridge is out when prediciting a train wreck.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Whether or not the President used a signing statement is irrelevant; there exist almost no laws that do not require not insignificant interpretation in order to "execute".
Can't help myself fugu... you got a bit carried away with double negatives AJ
My version
quote: Whether or not the President used a signing statement is irrelevant; most laws require significant interpretation in order to "execute" them.
posted
I know, AJ, I was having a bit of fun with the double negatives to emphasize the negative space -- that there was nothing overly surprising -- at the root of my answer.
quote: Originally posted by kmbboots: I probably agree with your opinions, but in these kinds of discussion we have to argue actual facts. I an discussion of the Unitary Theory it might be helpful to talk about the history of regulatory agencies - have they been under the executive branch? Are they now? When were the various agencies formed and by whom?
Thank you for your kindness kmbboots, and thank you all for your opinions. Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
You are a student prosecutor. You know more about how slowly the wheels of justice grind. I have no experience with the courts. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
AJ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
