ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , Hunter Biden , joe biden , rudy giuliani , Trump controversies , US-Ukraine relations

Reply
Old 9th October 2019, 11:02 AM   #1481
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,048
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Exactly. The Dem's need to stop following unspoken rules, or the norms, and start inflicting some pain on those that aren't participating. To people like me it makes them look weak and half assed. They have to full ass everything from this point forward without hesitation.
This. Absolutely this.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 11:05 AM   #1482
slyjoe
Graduate Poster
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins
Posts: 1,702
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
This. Absolutely this.

Agreed.
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 11:09 AM   #1483
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,173
Originally Posted by slyjoe View Post
Subpoenas from Congress are not search warrants. What happens if you don't comply with a search warrant? They come in anyway. If you don't respond to a subpeona, they can find you in contempt.
Congress found Holder in contempt for refusing a subpoena. What was the consequence of that?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 11:13 AM   #1484
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,411
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's not an obstruction of justice to refuse a search without a search warrant, no matter how much drugs you have stashed in the closet. Forcing the prosecutors to take the long route through every available aspect of due process is not obstruction. Contesting a subpoena is not obstruction.
A search warrant is your analogy? How many rationalizations are you willing to make? A Congressional request for information is proper. And a subpoena has the force of law. It absolutely is obstruction of justice. And as I repeated before this was an article of impeachment against Nixon.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 11:15 AM   #1485
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,411
Originally Posted by slyjoe View Post
Subpoenas from Congress are not search warrants. What happens if you don't comply with a search warrant? They come in anyway. If you don't respond to a subpeona, they can find you in contempt.
They can arrest you too. And they have arrested government officials who have refused to comply.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 11:18 AM   #1486
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,934
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
On the other hand, it is obstruction of justice if people engage in actions that they are not legally allowed to do.

For example, Trump himself might want to bring legal action in order to to stop subpoenas regarding his tax returns. Its a scummy thing to do, but he (probably) has the right. What he does not have the right to do is to have his minions likewise work to challenge subpoenas, when there is no public benefit to doing so.

Mnuchin has no public standing to block congress into obtaining Trump's tax returns. And it is not of benefit to the public to have Barr acting to stop New York from likewise obtaining Trump's tax records. Both of those characters are acting in the interest of Trump rather than the interest of the United States.
Barr can make a case that this is about protecting the presidency from overt political attacks that distract from daily business. I don't agree with that argument, but it would presumably be one he could make and which would then need to be adjudicated.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 11:20 AM   #1487
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,411
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Contempt is usually prosecuted by the Justice Dept, as I understand. Not likely to go far.

I've heard talk of so called "inherent" powers to prosecute contempt or something similar. Hasn't happened in a long time. Might be interesting in seeing that, but might just serve to further divide the country.
So what? The country is divided anyway. Congress has the authority and needs to do it otherwise they have made the legislative branch useless.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 9th October 2019 at 11:50 AM.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 11:30 AM   #1488
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,173
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
A Congressional request for information is proper.
No. It is sometimes proper. Sometimes it is not. Subpoenas (Congressional or otherwise) can be challenged in court, and the challenger can win.

Quote:
And a subpoena has the force of law. It absolutely is obstruction of justice.
So... Eric Holder?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 11:40 AM   #1489
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: People's Democratic Republic of Planet X
Posts: 31,740
Originally Posted by slyjoe View Post
Agreed.
+1
__________________
"Shemp, you are the one fixed point in an ever-changing universe." - Beady
"I don't want to live in a world without shemp." - Quarky
"Real name? Xavier Jorge Gladdius Horatio McShrimp. No wonder he goes by shemp." - wasapi
"...just as a magnet attracts iron filings, Trump shemp attracts, and is attracted to, louts." - George Will
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 11:42 AM   #1490
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,322
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
A search warrant is your analogy?
One of them, yes. Not that I expect you to work with it. Not you personally. Just that it's been my observation that nobody ever wants to work with an analogy. I test the hypothesis from time to time, and the results are always the same. I appreciate your participation in this round of testing.

Quote:
How many rationalizations are you willing to make? A Congressional request for information is proper.
A proper request is proper. I apologize for stating the obvious, but it seems necessary at this point. A lot of legal due process revolves around challenging the propriety of requests that are claimed to be proper, and resolving those challenges.

One good example of this is the objection process in court. One side attempts to do something that they allege is proper. The other side objects. Before the attempt may proceed, the objection must be considered by the judge.

Another good example is a court injunction, pending a legal decision. We see this when people challenge the propriety of a government regulation. A proper regulation is proper. But it's not automatically a crime to refuse to comply until you've obtained a court decision on whether the regulation really is as proper as the government claims.

A subpoena improperly issued is not proper. It's not automatically a crime to seek a court decision before complying. Nor is it automatically obstruction to seek such a decision first.

Quote:
And a subpoena has the force of law.
So do executive orders. But people reject the propriety of those, and challenge them in court and out of court, all the time.

Quote:
It absolutely is obstruction of justice. And as I repeated before this was an article of impeachment against Nixon.
An article of impeachment is an allegation. It still has to go to trial, and be decided, before it's established to be a true allegation. Since the articles of impeachment against Nixon never went to trial, their evidentiary value is moot. All we have is the House's unproven allegation. Which is actually kind of similar to what's going on here.

I get that you are already convinced of the truth of these allegations. All I'm saying is, slow your roll a bit. Let due process duly proceed. Everyone who was going to be swayed by your passion is already swayed. New converts are going to require you to come up with new and different arguments.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 12:02 PM   #1491
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,411
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
One of them, yes. Not that I expect you to work with it. Not you personally. Just that it's been my observation that nobody ever wants to work with an analogy. I test the hypothesis from time to time, and the results are always the same. I appreciate your participation in this round of testing.


A proper request is proper. I apologize for stating the obvious, but it seems necessary at this point. A lot of legal due process revolves around challenging the propriety of requests that are claimed to be proper, and resolving those challenges.

One good example of this is the objection process in court. One side attempts to do something that they allege is proper. The other side objects. Before the attempt may proceed, the objection must be considered by the judge.

Another good example is a court injunction, pending a legal decision. We see this when people challenge the propriety of a government regulation. A proper regulation is proper. But it's not automatically a crime to refuse to comply until you've obtained a court decision on whether the regulation really is as proper as the government claims.

A subpoena improperly issued is not proper. It's not automatically a crime to seek a court decision before complying. Nor is it automatically obstruction to seek such a decision first.


So do executive orders. But people reject the propriety of those, and challenge them in court and out of court, all the time.


An article of impeachment is an allegation. It still has to go to trial, and be decided, before it's established to be a true allegation. Since the articles of impeachment against Nixon never went to trial, their evidentiary value is moot. All we have is the House's unproven allegation. Which is actually kind of similar to what's going on here.

I get that you are already convinced of the truth of these allegations. All I'm saying is, slow your roll a bit. Let due process duly proceed. Everyone who was going to be swayed by your passion is already swayed. New converts are going to require you to come up with new and different arguments.
The problem is that you keep making courtroom analogies. This is not a court of law. Your analogy is a red herring.

Congress has inherent powers and frankly the courts have already ruled on this issue in many many cases including with Nixon, Clinton and Thomas Jefferson And frankly, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the courts are arbiters. What the President is doing is subverting the authority granted to Congress by the Constitution.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 12:10 PM   #1492
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,411
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. It is sometimes proper. Sometimes it is not. Subpoenas (Congressional or otherwise) can be challenged in court, and the challenger can win.
Sow me when a government employee refused to obey a Congressional subpoena and won. Provide a citation.
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
So... Eric Holder?
What about Holder?
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 12:19 PM   #1493
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,322
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The problem is that you keep making courtroom analogies. This is not a court of law. Your analogy is a red herring.

Congress has inherent powers and frankly the courts have already ruled on this issue in many many cases including with Nixon, Clinton and Thomas Jefferson And frankly, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the courts are arbiters. What the President is doing is subverting the authority granted to Congress by the Constitution.
It's a longstanding principle that the three branches of government are co-equal in constitutional authority. If you reject the Judiciary as arbiter, then the Executive has just as much authority as the Legislative, to decide this question.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 12:20 PM   #1494
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,322
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Sow me when a government employee refused to obey a Congressional subpoena and won. Provide a citation.
What about Holder?
Congress found him in contempt for ignoring a subpoena. What were the consequences?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 12:24 PM   #1495
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,557
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
This. Absolutely this.
This. The Dems have got to stop bringing a knife to a gun fight.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 12:51 PM   #1496
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,282
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Congress found him in contempt for ignoring a subpoena. What were the consequences?
Not much, but that was because the Artificial-Flavored scandal the GOP House was trying to pull was pretty transparently ludicrous. Ergo the GOP decided not to pursue any punishment of Holder.

By comparison, the WH has shown documents showing the USA how he tried to get favors from Ukraine. They just seemed shocked that it isn't considered just fine and dandy to do so.

Think you'll get Kevin McCarthy to march the GOP minority members out of the House?

That said, yes, the Democrats will need to show some teeth with any contempt charge. This can be done if there is will to do so.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 12:54 PM   #1497
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,322
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Exactly. The Dem's need to stop following unspoken rules, or the norms, and start inflicting some pain on those that aren't participating. To people like me it makes them look weak and half assed. They have to full ass everything from this point forward without hesitation.
Do you think Pelosi and the rest of the Dem leadership are stupid? Because I think they're stupid, but I don't think they're that stupid. I give them at least enough credit, as career politicians and experienced Congresspeople, to know what strategies are available to them, and to weigh the political value of pursuing the various options. If they're actually so stupid as to overlook the clear net win that you see, in the strategy you propose, then they're probably too stupid to actually pull off this impeachment thing. You may want to consider whether it's better for them to quit while they're ahead.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 01:06 PM   #1498
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,411
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's a longstanding principle that the three branches of government are co-equal in constitutional authority. If you reject the Judiciary as arbiter, then the Executive has just as much authority as the Legislative, to decide this question.
And each has specific responsibilities. Congress has not only a Constitutional right, it has a responsibility to perform oversight functions. The President on oath of office is responsible for upholding the Constitution. He has a duty in his administration of the government to assist Congress in their duties. If a government employee or agency is not cooperating with the legislative branch, he has a responsibility to make sure they do as opposed to Trump's tactic to hamper them.

This may not be ""criminal" but it definitely is a high crime since it clearly is a dereliction of duty and an abuse of power.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 01:06 PM   #1499
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,102
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's a longstanding principle that the three branches of government are co-equal in constitutional authority. If you reject the Judiciary as arbiter, then the Executive has just as much authority as the Legislative, to decide this question.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 seems to be a specific example of where the Legislative has authority to oversee the Executive. Why revert to general principles when there is a specific clause on point?
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 01:12 PM   #1500
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,699
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Do you think Pelosi and the rest of the Dem leadership are stupid? Because I think they're stupid, but I don't think they're that stupid.
If you think they're stupid then why would I take your assessment with anything more than a grain of salt? I think they do\have done stupid things, but I don't think they are stupid.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I give them at least enough credit, as career politicians and experienced Congresspeople, to know what strategies are available to them, and to weigh the political value of pursuing the various options. If they're actually so stupid as to overlook the clear net win that you see, in the strategy you propose, then they're probably too stupid to actually pull off this impeachment thing. You may want to consider whether it's better for them to quit while they're ahead.
Maybe you misunderstand, I don't think they're ahead. I don't think they will be until they start hard assing this impeachment. They're letting Trump control the narrative, and while you and I are discussing this, Trump has "won" (to me) because he can do whatever the **** he wants. This has to stop. Enough is enough.

Trump has made his whole presidency about skirting norms, avoiding established processes, and pulling the shades over any bit of transparency that he can and I'm sick of it. The phrase "enough Mr. Nice Guy" exists for a reason. The Dems have played within the unwritten rules and strategies this whole time and it's gotten them moving too slowly. If Trump wants to step outside the norms, then I say the Dems meet him there while staying within the law and still having self-respect. Outside of that, **** this orange moron.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 01:27 PM   #1501
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,411
What I am curious about is what do our Trump apologists think happened with Ukraine and do they this was an abuse of power? Also, do they think that stonewalling Congress is an abuse of power?
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 01:47 PM   #1502
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,020
I think the Dems are doing fine if they just press ahead, making it clear they can only be delayed not stopped. If the subpoena process gets hung up, they can press ahead without that evidence and add an "obstruction of Congress" as an impeachable offense, and they can use that obstruction as evidence of corrupt intent. There will be Articles of Impeachment, and this stage of the process is just to settle on the charges and to gather whatever evidence is available. But really, there's already enough -- and not just the stuff that'll be in the Articles -- for the American people to decide if this guy needs to be fired.

Last edited by WilliamSeger; 9th October 2019 at 01:49 PM.
WilliamSeger is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 02:04 PM   #1503
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,173
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
But really, there's already enough -- and not just the stuff that'll be in the Articles -- for the American people to decide if this guy needs to be fired.
Quite so. So why not leave the question to the American people instead?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 02:16 PM   #1504
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,411
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Quite so. So why not leave the question to the American people instead?
Because they can't. There are principles at stake. Constitutional issues. There is a Constitutional responsibility to oversee the executive. Trump is wantonly abusing the power of the President. If Congress is unwilling to exercise its power, it has acceded that authority to the executive. Not just Trump, but any President can then ignore Congress.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 02:17 PM   #1505
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,699
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Quite so. So why not leave the question to the American people instead?
They should, and when it is time to make that decision the American people should have every single bit of available information possible. They shouldn't have to make that decision with anything less, which is what Trump wants. He wants as little information publicly available because the more that comes out, the more damaging to him it is.

Investigate, bring everything to light, and if he isn't impeached from that then an educated American populace can do what they think is best. Why is that a problem?
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 02:23 PM   #1506
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,173
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Because they can't.
Of course they can. There's an election coming up. And the odds of the election being finished before these impeachment proceedings is pretty good.

Quote:
There are principles at stake. Constitutional issues. There is a Constitutional responsibility to oversee the executive.
You moved the goalpost. Either the public's opinion on the issue matters, or it doesn't. You brought up the public's opinion, not me. Now you want to say it doesn't matter.

Quote:
If Congress is unwilling to exercise its power, it has acceded that authority to the executive. Not just Trump, but any President can then ignore Congress.
Presidents have been ignoring Congress for decades. After all, they've got pens and phones.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 02:25 PM   #1507
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,173
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
They should, and when it is time to make that decision the American people should have every single bit of available information possible. They shouldn't have to make that decision with anything less, which is what Trump wants. He wants as little information publicly available because the more that comes out, the more damaging to him it is.

Investigate, bring everything to light, and if he isn't impeached from that then an educated American populace can do what they think is best. Why is that a problem?
I don't think it is a problem. But the Democrats evidently think it is a problem, because they're getting their panties in a twist over the possibility that what went down in Ukraine might get investigated.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 02:27 PM   #1508
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,322
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 seems to be a specific example of where the Legislative has authority to oversee the Executive. Why revert to general principles when there is a specific clause on point?
It's a specific example of a specific authority - the authority to remove Executives from office.

It's not an example of the Legislature's authority to override or overturn the Executive's own authority to interpret the constitution.

As far as I know, that's not an authority either branch can claim. To be honest, though, I don't really understand how the Judiciary gets that authority. So if you have Article, Section, Clause that explains that conundrum, I'd be very grateful.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 02:29 PM   #1509
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,411
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Of course they can. There's an election coming up. And the odds of the election being finished before these impeachment proceedings is pretty good.

You moved the goalpost. Either the public's opinion on the issue matters, or it doesn't. You brought up the public's opinion, not me. Now you want to say it doesn't matter.
I never mentioned it. Neversaid a word about public opinion

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post

Presidents have been ignoring Congress for decades. After all, they've got pens and phones.
I challenge you to offer anything even remotely comparable.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 02:33 PM   #1510
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,411
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's a specific example of a specific authority - the authority to remove Executives from office.

It's not an example of the Legislature's authority to override or overturn the Executive's own authority to interpret the constitution.

As far as I know, that's not an authority either branch can claim. To be honest, though, I don't really understand how the Judiciary gets that authority. So if you have Article, Section, Clause that explains that conundrum, I'd be very grateful.
Marbury V Madison established Judicial Review and it has more than 200 years of precedence. The President doesn't have a right to interpret the Constitution. He has a duty to obey it.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 02:40 PM   #1511
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,173
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I never mentioned it. Neversaid a word about public opinion
You're correct, it was WilliamSeger. My apologies.

Quote:
I challenge you to offer anything even remotely comparable.
To what, exactly? Ignoring congressional subpoenas? That's been done countless times.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 02:42 PM   #1512
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,173
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Marbury V Madison established Judicial Review and it has more than 200 years of precedence. The President doesn't have a right to interpret the Constitution. He has a duty to obey it.
You cannot obey the constitution without interpreting it. It isn't computer code.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 02:46 PM   #1513
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,265
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You cannot obey the constitution without interpreting it. It isn't computer code.
I interpret your post to mean "donkey butter waffle dolphins explode with rich raspberry flavor". I don't see the relevance of your bizarre statement.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 02:47 PM   #1514
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,411
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You're correct, it was WilliamSeger. My apologies.



To what, exactly? Ignoring congressional subpoenas? That's been done countless times.
Feel free to present evidence of it being done wholesale. And a President extorting a foreign nation for personal gain.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 02:49 PM   #1515
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,411
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You cannot obey the constitution without interpreting it. It isn't computer code.
While this is true, the text is plain and is easily understandable. It must be done in good faith.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 02:49 PM   #1516
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,557
WAPO reports that Trump's decision on Syria is now on the Democrats "we are going to take a look at it" list.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 02:50 PM   #1517
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,557
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I interpret your post to mean "donkey butter waffle dolphins explode with rich raspberry flavor". I don't see the relevance of your bizarre statement.
This is what often happens when you A. Try to defend the undefendable or
B.Support something you don't want to say out and out you are supporting.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 02:51 PM   #1518
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,265
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
This is what often happens when you A. Try to defend the undefendable or
B.Support something you don't want to say out and out you are supporting.
One ends up hungry for breakfast foods! Breakfast foods of Justice!
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 02:57 PM   #1519
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,173
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
While this is true, the text is plain and is easily understandable. It must be done in good faith.
The commonality of 5-4 supreme court decisions suggests that the application of the constitution is not always so simple, even in good faith.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 02:58 PM   #1520
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,322
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
If you think they're stupid then why would I take your assessment with anything more than a grain of salt? I think they do\have done stupid things, but I don't think they are stupid.



Maybe you misunderstand, I don't think they're ahead. I don't think they will be until they start hard assing this impeachment. They're letting Trump control the narrative, and while you and I are discussing this, Trump has "won" (to me) because he can do whatever the **** he wants. This has to stop. Enough is enough.
I get that.

My point is, you seem certain that they need to take certain steps to correct this problem.

I assume that they understand the situation and the problem as well as you do, and that the steps you recommend are steps they're already aware of, and have already considered. I also assume that being aware of the steps, and having already considered them, they have found reasons not to take those steps. Probably those reasons have to do with those steps not actually being as advantageous as you believe.

So. What's your explanation for why they haven't taken those steps yet? Do you think they haven't noticed that option, even though you have? Do you think they've noticed it, but are too cowardly to choose it? What? You say House Dems need to do this. House Dems aren't doing it. Either they haven't yet figured out what you've figured out, or they have figured out something else that you don't yet know.

Which is it, do you think?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:31 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.