|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Alex (Reply to this comment)
by macresarf1
Dear Rouchelle: As long as the President, whoever he/she (one day soon) is, keeps a copy of the U.S Constitution handy, and acts within its parameters, he need fear nothing. He is in charge of the Executive for the (at present) greatest, most powerful congressional democracy in the World. So long as he acts decently, he has vast powers under the Constitution, which make him (nearly) bullet-proof, to impeachment or criminal indictment, while in office.
But as soon as he begins to lie to the American People on a vast scale, lie to the Congress, order our forces into war on false pretenses, abrogate foreign treaties, direct the the torture and murder of innocent people, circumvent the powers of the other Constitutional Branches, plot the manipulation of the voting process, consciously change the moral premises on which the Nation was founded, and blatantly conspires with his cronies, friends, family and class to loot the Treasury, he must be stopped, short of insurrection and civil war.
In that view, I seem to stand with Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Ralph Nader.
The device for doing that is called Impeachment, and .
If George W. Bush, and those he has represented for eight years, are not severely punished, the next President who does it will simply use the excuse: "I'm doing nothing that a previous president did with impunity."
Do you really believe that the other powerful nations of the World will stand around and see themselves trashed indefinitely?
If so, Rouchelle, you are really an optimist, and if correct, an unfortunate one for the future of our Republic.
But I always appreciate your reactions, my dear.
Alex
|
Aug 17 '08
8:37 pm PDT
|
|
Alex (Reply to this comment)
by le_domaine
I'll have to agree with Coldsteel7 (John). We can't begin to prosecute our executive branch of government with threats of detainment or capital punishment for performing the duties of their office, while in office. John's right: no one would govern; they'd be too afraid of potential sanctions and legal punishment.
However, I do agree with you that we must always know what they do, insist that they act as we--the people of the United States of America--vote/decide they should, and exact some kind of retribution if/when they decide to act as they or their cohorts deem necessary without our permissions.
Great narrative recantings in these postings, Alex. Bless you... and stay safe out there.
Rouchelle
|
Aug 16 '08
2:00 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Dear John: (Reply to this comment)
by macresarf1
Thank you, John
Appreciate it.
For a more scholarly, brilliant presentation of my argument, you might look at Chalmers Johnson's article in Truthdig:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/page3/20080727_the_military_industrial_complex_its_much_later_than_you_think/
Alex
|
Jul 30 '08
12:19 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Dear John: (Reply to this comment)
by coldsteel7
Your welcome...provocative remarks on politics are my specialty...hehehe.
I agree with some of your concepts on the Constitution, but for me, there is a very large deviation from point A to point B. I don't come to the same conclusions because my thought processes are very different. I guess that is still what makes this Nation great...we don't have to agree.
Thanks for your kind reply. We will never agree, but it is good when we can believe what we believe while respecting each other's opinions. And yours sir, are eloquently presented regardless of our differing positions.
John
|
Jul 29 '08
6:16 pm PDT
|
|
Dear John: (Reply to this comment)
by macresarf1
I had a long, comprehensive reply, which got lost in the mysterious innards of the Epinions machine.
I'll just say, thank you, and ask you to remember that our Constitution, the only thing which made us a noble and admirable nation to ourselves, and in the eyes of the World, is a Contract. Ours rests on the Social Contract between the People, you and me, and those we choose to represent us. It is a system of checks and balances, a three element mechanism of Courts, Congress and the Executive. If the contract is not enforced, the system falls apart, and as the Germans used to like to say: "All is permitted."
We are at that stage.
Unlike the extent to which any President has exceeded his authority under the Constitution, George W. Bush, without using grandstanding Prosecutor Vincent J. Bubliosi's book title, is responsible for the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents. Some were at random, others were citizens of sovereign states.
That by another name is "murder."
If it is not stopped, and Impeachment or "Limitations on the Executive" are ways to do it, future Presidents, Democratic or Republican, will just continue to use those "loaded weapons."
It's up to us to make our lazy, cowed political parties stop them.
Thank you, John, for your provocative remarks.
Alex --Macresarf1
|
Jul 28 '08
11:03 pm PDT
|
|
I Couldn't Disagree More (Reply to this comment)
by coldsteel7
But your well written and composed review expresses your feelings well.
Impeachments and hearings of this nature are exactly what it wrong with our Congress...and why they have single digit approval ratings. Instead of bashing each other over political ideology, they should be hammering out meaningful legislation. I have had it up to my gills in the same old same old (and felt the same way about the Clinton Impeachment). It's all politics and doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
As for trying the President for murder...that is beyond absurd. The very concept, if it gained any traction would make it impossible to govern. Anything a President or Congress endeavors to do could result in criminal litigation. Absurd.
Just my humble thoughts.
John
|
Jul 28 '08
1:42 pm PDT
|
|
|
|
