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.
Again, is this some sort of argument against the rule of law? Because of the failings? Are you disagreeing with what the author of the piece is arguing? Really hard to tell or believe, but sort of reads that way...
NO, I agree and support the rule off law...and our constitution
what I am saying is that we (our government officials) have failed to abide by our constitution which supports freedom...
and it is clear to see the LACK of "rule of law" (based on the constitution) for at least 100 years
if rule of law and our constitution says we can not infringe on peoples rights....how is it that we prohibited liquor (the freedom to consume) in the 1920's..and then prohibited hemp/cannabis (again the freedom to consume) in 1937
if rule of law and our constitution says we can not infringe on peoples rights....how is it that we entered wars with a draft
if rule of law and our constitution says we can not infringe on peoples rights, or set stupid rules for age/voting/drinking/marriage/entering a contract/who you can marry....how is it that we have so many different ages for different things and not ONE STANDARD
To further clarify, obstruction of Congress was invented for this impeachment. They made it up because they know for a fact that they failed to invoke the actual rule of law where their subpoenas were concerned by handing it off to the judiciary, which would then open up obstruction of justice (an actual crime) if Trump still refused a court order.
Obstructing Congress is a DUTY of the Executive branch, featured prominently in Article II of the US Constitution. Co-equal branches of government not cooperating with each other is a feature, not a bug. That's why it is not an actual crime, but a made up one, akin to saying "we further find the President guilty of constantly annoying us and not letting us have our way, even when our way is totally outside the rule of law. He's a meanie and a doo-doo head!" The President is supposed to stymie and annoy Congress. That's the Executive's job as check on Legislative power.
Again the issue is not whether the Democrats or Republicans are more or less in the right or wrong but what sort of actions on the part of our leadership needs to HELP restore whatever lost confidence or credibility in these institutions rather than undermine them further. Easier said than done of course, but that's also the other point of this thread! What we used to better agree about fundamentally and still should...
Well, start with the Democrats in the House, because subverting the rule of law to exact political vengeance for 2016 is all they do.
Listen to yourself. I really don't think you understand a thing about what the author of this article was trying to argue, and people like you make that understanding and/or goal altogether impossible to promote let alone achieve.
Feel free to consult US Code, SCOTUS and circuit court case law, and anything else you prefer to ind the explicit crime of "obstruction of Congress." Contempt of Congress, yes. Obstruction of justice, yes. But obstruction of Congress? Nope, not until this impeachment because if they went for anything already defined in US Code and case law, they have no case and they know that.
And they didn't make a new law that created the crime and wrote it into the US Code, because making laws requires the Senate and the White House to become official. So the charge is a made up non-crime that is purely for political theater, same as the rest of the impeachment process. When it gets even slightly more legal treatment in the Senate, it will fail, and rightly so.
Author, "Orange man bad. If we search hard enough, we will find a crime."
Meanwhile, Hillary actually committed a crime, but since that wasn't her intent.....
Meanwhile, FBI agent, "We need to insure we can take Trump down."
Someone made the valid argument about the role of the POTUS, Congress, the three branches of government, and of course the opposing parties in office are part of that dynamic. We should be thankful the OTHER party is not so quick to accept or approve of what the opposing party is doing, or to look away from possible wrong-doing like the accused is likely to do. We count on the other party to keep the opposing party "honest" and this is why the opposing party tends to line up on one side or the other when evidence mounts that a POTUS may have abused power or obstructed justice.
Put another way, what fool would expect the Republicans to evaluate those facts in a objective critical fashion? Again we've recently got Lindsey Graham publicly explaining he will not try to “pretend to be a fair juror” should Donald Trump face an impeachment trial in the US Senate.
Of course not (though shame on him and the other cowards too). What choice have we got other than to expect the opposing party poke their nose well deep into the facts while the Republicans seem intent on keeping their nose snugged up Trump's rear end? Works the EXACT same way when it's the other party on the hot seat! To expect anything else is not to know much about how politics works here and just about every other democratic country...
Listen to yourself. I really don't think you understand a thing about what the author of this article was trying to argue, and people like you make that understanding and/or goal altogether impossible to promote let alone achieve.
The author of the article is defending an agency that exists outside of the rule of law and was recently cataloged in just how wildly they ignore the rule of law in their quest to aid the Democrats in their quest for political vengeance, and does so because he feels their existence outside the rule of law is what is needed to defend the rule of law because the people inside the agency who violate the rule of law wholesale are really good people who are patriots and dedicated. Or something.
Yeah, they made a bunch of mistakes, lied to the FISA court, etc...but they meant well and they're patriotic and dedicated, so shut up Trump, Barr and Giuliani...the FBI rulez all!
His bottom line seems to be "nobody needs to watch the watchers, noting to see here, move along. Oh, and Orange Man Bad."
That you agree with it speaks to your glaringly obvious partisanship that love to try and hide behind some veil of neutrality and independence. Dude, you're a Team Blue liberal and cheer for Team Blue. Admit it, since we all know it anyway.
Someone made the valid argument about the role of the POTUS, Congress, the three branches of government, and of course the opposing parties in office are part of that dynamic. We should be thankful the OTHER party is not so quick to accept or approve of what the opposing party is doing, or to look away from possible wrong-doing like the accused is likely to do. We count on the other party to keep the opposing party "honest" and this is why the opposing party tends to line up on one side or the other when evidence mounts that a POTUS may have abused power or obstructed justice.
Put another way, what fool would expect the Republicans to evaluate those facts in a objective critical fashion? Again we've recently got Lindsey Graham publicly explaining he will not try to “pretend to be a fair juror” should Donald Trump face an impeachment trial in the US Senate.
Of course not (though shame on him and the other cowards too). What choice have we got other than to expect the opposing party poke their nose into the facts while the Republicans seem intent on keeping their nose snugged up Trump's rear end? Works the EXACT same way when it's the other party on the hot seat!
I know that you don't require any evidence, but I expect that.
Orange man bad. I know it. Get rid of him. Orange man bad.
I would ask about evidence for the 200th time, but for the 200th time, I'd either get a link to an opinion piece stating the evidence is Trump not participating in the Kangaroo court or the "you can google it reply.
Can't disagree with what you are saying, but you do understand that the rule of law is inconvenient for those that want to profit from lawlessness. Whether that profit is measured in dollars or in power.
The "rule of law" concept is ultimately based on rationality. Law is a highly rational system based on duality and logical argument. One of the reasons why we are veering away from being a nation of laws is that we are no longer value critical thinking and rational skills, in fact we delight in tossing these old-fashioned ideas into the waste-bin.
Populist dogma just feels better to many people; so we have become a nation where we govern based on feelings, not on law. This is why someone like Trump is so popular, governing based on law is hard slogging work; it's a lot easier to stop thinking, and start accepting the latest pronouncements flowing from Great Leader's mouth.
Can you perhaps distill what alternative you might be suggesting we rely upon? There are no perfect ways to go, only better rather than worse. The EFFORT to promote the rule of law to bring about and establish justice is a good one. The results, however, not always so good. We fail too often but not always. Still, it's the effort we should all agree is important and demand our leaders to further promote rather than undermine. I think that's the author's main point, and I agree.
Someone made the valid argument about the role of the POTUS, Congress, the three branches of government, and of course the opposing parties in office are part of that dynamic. We should be thankful the OTHER party is not so quick to accept or approve of what the opposing party is doing, or to look away from possible wrong-doing like the accused is likely to do. We count on the other party to keep the opposing party "honest" and this is why the opposing party tends to line up on one side or the other when evidence mounts that a POTUS may have abused power or obstructed justice.
Put another way, what fool would expect the Republicans to evaluate those facts in a objective critical fashion? Again we've recently got Lindsey Graham publicly explaining he will not try to “pretend to be a fair juror” should Donald Trump face an impeachment trial in the US Senate.
Of course not (though shame on him and the other cowards too). What choice have we got other than to expect the opposing party poke their nose into the facts while the Republicans seem intent on keeping their nose snugged up Trump's rear end? Works the EXACT same way when it's the other party on the hot seat! To expect anything else is not to know much about how politics works here and just about every other democratic country...
But Schiff and Nadler never attempted to be fair, nor did they claim they were going to. In a purely political process, fair is clearly irrelevant. In the House, that gives the Democrats a ton of room to operate unfairly. Problem is, in the Senate, now the Republicans get to be equally unfair, in a purely political fashion.
And your hypocrite slip is showing. OK for the House to be unfair and ignore the established rules in order to get the scalp you want, but oh no, let us clutch pearls and find the fainting sofa if the Republicans in the Senate DO THE SAME FREAKING THING in order t deny you that scalp.
I want the whole government burned to the ground, but watching the players and cheerleaders of the two teams twist reality so hard to fit their narratives and avoid cognitive dissonance is truly a wonder to behold. What works for Team Blue is anathema when done by Team Red, and vice versa. If you folks didn't have logical inconsistency, you'd have no logic at all.
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.
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.
