Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-07-2014, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,400,833 times
Reputation: 6541

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
M-F was a low point of the Bush presidency, and in my view W was a classic RINO. He was a good man, but then so was Jimmy Carter. In 2016 the GOP needs desperately to break the habit of putting up nominees who don't believe in limited gov't. We haven't had one of those since 1984--30 years ago....
Yet another classic case of civic illiteracy.

First, the presidency is not defined by acts of Congress.

Second, it probably never occurred to you that when a President signs a bill into law that they object to was so they can include a Signing Statement that voices their objections to the law. Particularly when they have reservations about the constitutionality of a law. Exactly like Bush43 did with McCain/Feingold.

George W. Bush: Statement on Signing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

If the President does not sign the bill, it becomes law automatically while Congress is still in session after 10 calendar days (excluding Sundays), even without the President's signature. In such an event, the President would have missed an opportunity to voice his objections concerning the law.

Bush43 was a RINO, but that had absolutely nothing to do with why he signed a bad law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-07-2014, 06:25 PM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,783 posts, read 3,734,508 times
Reputation: 1336
People following the non-aggression principle are not "anarchists". You can have a very powerful government that only acts as a retaliatory force to protect individual freedom from initiators of force.

Just because this country is "regulated" by the State initiating force against the individual does not mean that is the only way to form an association among people. A free people only need a retaliatory force against aggressors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2014, 06:26 PM
 
2,776 posts, read 3,587,010 times
Reputation: 2312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Why can't they be?
Conservatives can have a strong authoritarian streak and will happily use the state to impose certain moral standards on the citizenry via the legal system.

Libertarians favor strong personal freedom and resist infringements on their rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2014, 06:28 PM
 
79,908 posts, read 44,064,775 times
Reputation: 17204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Yet another classic case of civic illiteracy.

First, the presidency is not defined by acts of Congress.

Second, it probably never occurred to you that when a President signs a bill into law that they object to was so they can include a Signing Statement that voices their objections to the law. Particularly when they have reservations about the constitutionality of a law. Exactly like Bush43 did with McCain/Feingold.

George W. Bush: Statement on Signing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

Bush43 was a RINO, but that had absolutely nothing to do with why he signed a bad law.
A presidents oath says he will uphold the Constitution. A signing statement does not excuse him breaking his oath. Saying that he knows it's unconstitutional and here is a statement saying so does not make it better.

If you believe it is unconstitutional you veto it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2014, 06:35 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,400,833 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow View Post
People following the non-aggression principle are not "anarchists".
Very true. I would define such people as "pacifists," and I have very little tolerance for either pacifists or anarchists. Both are terminally naive positions, as far as I am concerned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2014, 06:39 PM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,783 posts, read 3,734,508 times
Reputation: 1336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Very true. I would define such people as "pacifists," and I have very little tolerance for either pacifists or anarchists. Both are terminally naive positions, as far as I am concerned.
pacifist: a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable.

A person following the non-aggression principle can be in favor of a very violent retaliatory force. Initiations of force are always immoral, retaliatory force is moral.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2014, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,400,833 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
A presidents oath says he will uphold the Constitution. A signing statement does not excuse him breaking his oath. Saying that he knows it's unconstitutional and here is a statement saying so does not make it better.

If you believe it is unconstitutional you veto it.
Actually, that is not what the President's oath of office says. It says that he will "preserve, protect and defend" the US Constitution.

What Bush43 actually said was:
"I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law." --- George W. Bush: Statement on Signing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
He did not "know" if the law was unconstitutional or not. Instead, he voiced his reservations about the constitutionality of the law and allowed the courts to resolve the issue of the law's constitutionality - which they did.

In this case the President could very well have vetoed the bill. However, there was also a very good chance that the Democrat controlled Senate and Republican controlled House would have overridden his veto. They only needed 6 more votes in the Senate and 48 more votes in the House to override a veto in this particular case.

However, it should also be noted that no President, Democrat or Republican, will ever veto any bill, no matter how unconstitutional, if it passes Congress with a veto-proof majority. Which is the way most of the Continuing Resolutions, Omnibus, and Supplemental spending bills enacted by Congress these past 15 years have been passed.

Which is why it is moronic to define any presidency by the acts of Congress.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2014, 06:55 PM
 
79,908 posts, read 44,064,775 times
Reputation: 17204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
In this case the President could very well have vetoed the bill. However, there was also a very good chance that the Democrat controlled Senate and Republican controlled House would have overridden his veto. They only needed 6 more votes in the Senate and 48 more votes in the House to override a veto in this particular case.

However, it should also be noted that no President, Democrat or Republican, will ever veto any bill, no matter how unconstitutional, if it passes Congress with a veto-proof majority. Which is the way most of the Continuing Resolutions, Omnibus, and Supplemental spending bills enacted by Congress these past 15 years have been passed.

Which is why it is moronic to define any presidency by the acts of Congress.
As you note the votes weren't there for an over ride so your point is moot. It was perhaps the biggest attack of our Constitutional rights at least in my life time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2014, 06:59 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,321,941 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Yet another classic case of civic illiteracy.

First, the presidency is not defined by acts of Congress.
What does this even mean? The presidency is, at least in part, defined by what the president signs into law.
Quote:
Second, it probably never occurred to you that when a President signs a bill into law that they object to was so they can include a Signing Statement that voices their objections to the law. Particularly when they have reservations about the constitutionality of a law. Exactly like Bush43 did with McCain/Feingold.

George W. Bush: Statement on Signing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

If the President does not sign the bill, it becomes law automatically while Congress is still in session after 10 calendar days (excluding Sundays), even without the President's signature. In such an event, the President would have missed an opportunity to voice his objections concerning the law.

Bush43 was a RINO, but that had absolutely nothing to do with why he signed a bad law.
He should have vetoed it, but he signed it with some vague hope that the SCOTUS would throw it out.
FindLaw's Writ - Amar: Breaking Constitutional Faith

W was a RINO, and his handling of McCain-Feingold epitomized it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2014, 07:01 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,400,833 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow View Post
pacifist: a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable.

A person following the non-aggression principle can be in favor of a very violent retaliatory force.
Would that not be hypocritical? Is not "very violent retaliatory force" exactly the opposite of "the non-aggression principle?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow View Post
Initiations of force are always immoral, retaliatory force is moral.
I completely disagree that initiation of force is always immoral. If I want to feed myself, I must initiate the use of force (as in when I hunt and fish). How can feeding one's self be construed as immoral?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:31 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top