posted
Heck, he might even decide that giving them is still unconstitutional, but would go ahead and do it anyway out of the kindness of his heart. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But he might. You never know. "Gee, the American people would really like to know whom I invited to that Energy Task Force. Maybe I'll just, y'know, tell them."
If anything, the icy-cold conditions at the center of the Earth might solve our global warming problem for us. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But he might. You never know. "Gee, the American people would really like to know whom I invited to that Energy Task Force. Maybe I'll just, y'know, tell them."
It wouldn't be unconstitutional to tell them.
You do know that the smilies don't actually make you seem nice, well-meaning, or funny, right?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You do know that the smilies don't actually make you seem nice, well-meaning, or funny, right?
Not that I'm an expert myself, but I'm almost certain there's some kind of rule preventing lawyers from offering advice concerning one's sense of humor. If there isn't, there absolutely should be.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And with that Tom drew his sword and rushed at Dagonee who brandished a lawyer's briefcase in a defensive manner. For Dag had questioned Tom's use of the forum graemlins.
But seriously, Dag, certainly the use of smilies is important in a forum as words can appear to be unduely hostile without them. We don't have tone of voice or facial expressions to cross reference in a forum.
Maybe you know something I don't but I take Tom's comments with smilies to be more friendly then the ones without.
edit: How else can we convey our sentiments in a forum if not with emoticons or by following every statement with <wink> *Smiles* etc? Simply trying to sound friendly in your diction by itself just does not work IMO.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I take Tom's (and this is specific to Tom) statements with smilies as much more hostile than those without them. They usually involve a concerted effort to refuse to address a significant element of the discussion or to make wildly exaggerated statements about the other person's position.
In short, he's almost always nicer, more well-meaning, and funnier when he doesn't use them. Usually because the lack of them is a good indication that he's really trying to be nice, well-meaning, and funny rather than just look like he is.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, not quite. In general, I use a smiley when I know there's a hostile or dismissive interpretation possible for what I'm saying, and want to acknowledge that -- while indicating that what I'm saying is not meant to be hostile or dismissive. When I'm intentionally hostile or dismissive, I'm generally disinclined to use a phrasing that could be interpreted more innocently.
It's not unreasonable for Dag, then, to associate them with hostile or dismissive statements, because that IS when I generally take care to use them; if, despite their presence, he chooses to interpret those statements in a hostile or dismissive way, it must certainly seem to him (or anyone else who does the same thing) that I use smilies to accentuate my hostility.
For my part, I intend a smiley to indicate "just kidding" or "you don't really need to take this part of the post seriously." I understand that this is anathema to Dag, especially when discussing issues he considers important, but frankly I wouldn't be able to have a conversation without interjecting things for humorous value that I intend to be taken lightly; I suspect that I would expire halfway through any remotely serious thread -- out of ennui, if not self-importance.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not unreasonable for Dag, then, to associate them with hostile or dismissive statements, because that IS when I generally take care to use them; if, despite their presence, he chooses to interpret those statements in a hostile or dismissive way, it must certainly seem to him (or anyone else who does the same thing) that I use smilies to accentuate my hostility.
Tom, it's not just the wording of the statements. It's the history of using them to actually dismiss.
To me, it appears that they are only associated with conversations in which you steadfastedly ignore important portions of the other sides case - portions that already explain away the usually absurd result you are attributing to the other side's positions in your smilied statements.
I don't have any problem with humor even in a serious thread, but your humor in these situations seems tactical, not humorous.
For example, despite the smiley, it was clearly a serious comment central to your point when you said "While STILL saying 'I will not enforce this as written,' of course. Unless you think that it's 'okay, you guys. I'll go along with you this once, but I just wanted to, y'know, voice my objections.'" I then presented reasons why there are other very possible interpretations than the one you've given them.
At this point, that hasn't been addressed except by your "humorous" statement. Hence, it seems as if you are using humor to dismiss.
Edit: to be clear, I'm talking about my perceptions of your use of smileys. I'm not doubting your intentions, and I'll try to keep them in mind.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, I want to apologize for not getting back to this thread earlier, and then apologize again because I'm just skimming right now since I don't have time today, either, to deal with most of the stuff here. I have't dissapeard, I promise, I'm simply taking a 9 hour a day course that is an hour away from me last week and this.
Second, " Even though there's nothing to stop Congress from using impeachment in such a manner, it is not intended to be that."
This is unclear. I can't remember which federalist paper it is, but at least one points out that impeachment can and should be used anytime the president or another impeachable officer starts behaving badly.
Within the constitution, the guidelines are obviously illegal behavior for the president, although it is "good behavior" for supreme court justices that determines whether they can keep their jobs. And I do think its important not to impeach unless an illegal action has been undertaken. Of course, I would argue that the president saying that a bill that contains "must" or "shall" language is advisory is enough of an illegal action for me to support impeachment.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.
Of course, keep reading. He is clear that
1. Impeachment is a criminal proceedings (not a purely civil one), for criminal offenses (he talks about how the weight of an impeachment conviction means that it is very careful the Senate consider not just the politics, but the actual violation).
2. The reason the Senate was chosen was an attempt to divorce the proceedings from politics as much as possible.
3. In the end, the whole discussion of impeachment is mostly a vehicle (and metaphor) to trash the anti-federalists for being nit-pickers.
And even if it were pointing out what you assert, a political polemic designed to persuade people to support the Constitution is not a final authority (though it should be considered). We know of debate at the convention on the issue. What went into the document states "high crimes and misdeameanors" (misdemeanors were more serious offenses then), not "doing things we don't like" or even "interpeting the law wrong, but in a way in a way supported by precedent and the Supreme Court".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And unless he's actually acted on that interpretation, as Dagonee has pointed out there are several instances he hasn't (such as with providing reports to Congress), he hasn't even done anything legally wrong by the standards you have proposed. It doesn't much matter what he says, from a legal perspective, it matters what actions he takes. If he says something is advisory, but does it anyways, no violation has taken place. Signing statements are not law, and are not binding (though the President might not like it if members of the executive branch don't go along with them; his recourses are any that he normally has with executive branch employees not supporting the President's positions).
actually edit: I guess I hit reply, not edit . . .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The White House is also claiming executive privilege on e-mails on the firings sent by White House officials on Republican National Committee-sponsored accounts. Those documents also have been subpoenaed with a Tuesday return date, but Conyers agreed to give the RNC until July 31 to turn over the documents or explain why not.
quote:President Bush has the legal right to claim executive privilege. However, if a potential criminal investigation can supply valid reasons for needing the materials in question, a claim of executive privilege is insufficient unless issues of national security are at stake.
quote:What does this mean for the current standoff? Only time will tell, but it does not appear to bode well for the president. Discussions regarding the firing of Justice Department officials for partisan political reasons seem unlikely to be regarded by the courts as vital to protecting national security. Because lying to Congress and obstructing the proper administration of the law are crimes and because the Constitution gives Congress oversight responsibilities, it also seems unlikely the Courts will recognize a general claim of executive privilege as sufficient.
quote:The Nixon case made clear the executive cannot decide unilaterally what is and is not privileged, as this administration seems to believe it can. The public's records should be public. As Wigmore instructed, public officials have the responsibility "to explain and justify their acts," or oppression and corruption is sure to follow.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
