|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 27, 2015 0:42:24 GMT
The night before the recent Israeli election Prime Minister Netayahu expressly stated there would be no two-state solution on his watch. He has since tried unsuccessfully to retract those words but we can assume one of two thing is true. Either he was telling the truth the night before the election or he was lying but in either case he's not to be trusted when it comes to an Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Lasting peace is always achieved by diplomacy and not force of arms. The Palestinians, based upon UNSC Resolution 242, have offered a secured peace with Israel that provides more security than anything Israel can achieve on it's own. More importantly this peace accord is what the Palestinian People want. They're the ones oppressed and they want that oppression to end and it would under this accord. And because the majority of Palestinians want it even Hamas is willing to support it which ends any threat from the Palestinians to Israel. If Israel reaches a peace accord with the Palestinians based upon UNSC 242 it also changes the entire Middle East where Muslim nations have opposed Israel because Israel will not withdraw from the territories occupied in 1967.
Lasting peace for the Palestinians and the Israelis depends upon diplomacy but Israel has been rejecting a diplomatic peace.
A relatively small group of racist radicals, by the use of propaganda that is most effective based upon half-truths, can influence a majority of the population of an entire nation. Historical point the Nazis in Germany. Yes, even with small numbers the KKK and Stormfront can influence (and is influencing) the entire nation using propaganda based upon half-truths.
Let me ask a hypothetical question based on simple math. Assume that "pink" and "purple" are equal in number and qualifications and one year 100% of scholarships go to "pink" then is it fair if the next year 100% of the scholarships go to "purple"? The point being that each year independently would represent discrimination but the two years combined, would in a general, sense represents non-discrimination because mathmatically they cancel each other out.
While you might have the opinion that McCain and/or Romney would have made a better president the American people didn't believe that. When Obama leaves office his "numbers" are going to be very good in the opinion of most American experts. The economy it up by many major indicators. The US is out of Iraq and Afghanistan (for the most part). Iran has not produced a nuclear weapon and it is very unlikely it will happen on Obama's watch (even though there's no actual evidence Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon so that's sort of moot). Same-sex marriage, supported by the majority of Americans, has been established under his adminstration. Well over 10 million Americans that had no hope of securing health insurance will have it when he leaves office and most Americans do support the expansion of health insurance to more Americans (while objecting to Obamacare because few even understand it according to most polls).
I can find a lot of holes (and some are gapping holes) in the above but those are the simplistic "number" Obama's time in office is going to be judged by.
A president can not shift the country to either the left or right. It is the policies of the left and right that influence the American people. If more people are shifting to the left it's because more Americans are supporting the agenda and actions of the left and fewer Americans are supporting the agenda and actions of the right.
Excluding extrajudical executions and GITMO detainees not charged with any crime that (IMO) violate the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment I'm unaware of any constitutional violation by President Obama. Deferred prosecution for "illegal" immigrants, for example, is not a violation of the Constitution nor are their any lawsuits based upon such a violation. There is a 'stay' against the recent deferred prosecution that was issued by a federal court but it is not on Constitutional grounds but instead the 'stay' was issued on procedural grounds. So where is a lawsuit with merit that claims Obama violated the US Constitution?
If "pink" and "purple" are numerically equal (as you have suggested), yet "pink" received 100 percent of the scholarships in one year, my solution would not be to grant "purple" 100 percent of the scholarships the next year; rather, it would be to ensure, in the future, that all scholarships were based upon merit--whatever the resulting numbers might be. I do not believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu lied on either of the occasions stated. And he did not try to "retract" his words from the eve of the election, but rather, to explain them. (Apparently, his detractors will not accept his own explanation of what he actually meant; but prefer to attribute to him a meaning that fits in better with their own preconceived views.) The assertion that a "[l]asting" peace" is attained--"always"--through "diplomacy," rather than by "force of arms," is simply untrue. Roughly 70 years ago, the Allied powers settled Hitler's hash. And yes, it was by "force of arms"--not mere "diplomacy." It is my understanding that Barack Obama's latest poll numbers show an approval rating of just 46 percent! And that is far from being sterling. (To appeal to the votes of "the American people" in 2008 and 2012, as you have done, is to overlook the fact--intentionally, perhaps?--that an inordinate number of those voting for this community organizer were low-information voters, who just wanted all the freebies that Barack Obama was offering; and who preferred a democratic-socialist vision of America, not entirely unlike what exists nowadays in most European countries.) The mere fact that you are "unaware" of any violation of the US Constitution by Barack Obama is really not the central issue. Ultimately, the courts will decide the matter--although Barack Obama will probably be out of office by then; and the damage will have already been done. But at least a ruling against the president's (dictatorial) actions will serve as a precedent for the future.
My "pink" and "purple" example stated "equal in number and qualifications (merit) so what do you do after your efforts to "ensure" fail and the vast majority of the scholarships continue to go to "pink" for the next 40 years? How do you address the failure?
It wasn't the military defeat of Germany that lead to the peace since WW II. It was the post-conflict diplomacy. Germany also had it's ass handed to it on a shingle in WW I and that didn't result in a lasting peace because the post war diplomacy failed.
Netayahu has had opportunity after opportunity to secure a lasting peace with the Palestinians but has refused to even consider it for years. A lasting peace has to be based upon a win-win situation for both countries but Netayahu keep insisting on a win-lose where Israel wins and the Palestinians lose. For example I remember once when Netayahu insisted that the Palestinians could have a militry while Israel was going to militarily occupy the border so it could invade Palestine at any time without facing any military opposition. Netanyahu to this day, I believe, is insisting that the Palestinians "define the national character" of Israel as a "Jewish Nation" that Palestine doesn't even have the authority to do. It is the most illogical demand I've ever heard of.
Netayahu does not want peace with the Palestinians and never has. If he'd wanted a lasting peace he could easily have obtain a lasting peace based upon the mutual security of both Palestine and Israel.
I don't know how the courts are going to determine the "constitutionality" of anything President Obama has done because nothing he's done is being challenged on Constitutional grounds currently. We know that former President Bush was whacked by the Supreme Courtfor violating the Constitution related to the GITMO detainees but President Obama hasn't been whacked on anything and there are no pending lawsuit addressing constitutionalitly.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 30, 2015 0:02:38 GMT
If "pink" and "purple" are numerically equal (as you have suggested), yet "pink" received 100 percent of the scholarships in one year, my solution would not be to grant "purple" 100 percent of the scholarships the next year; rather, it would be to ensure, in the future, that all scholarships were based upon merit--whatever the resulting numbers might be. I do not believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu lied on either of the occasions stated. And he did not try to "retract" his words from the eve of the election, but rather, to explain them. (Apparently, his detractors will not accept his own explanation of what he actually meant; but prefer to attribute to him a meaning that fits in better with their own preconceived views.) The assertion that a "[l]asting" peace" is attained--"always"--through "diplomacy," rather than by "force of arms," is simply untrue. Roughly 70 years ago, the Allied powers settled Hitler's hash. And yes, it was by "force of arms"--not mere "diplomacy." It is my understanding that Barack Obama's latest poll numbers show an approval rating of just 46 percent! And that is far from being sterling. (To appeal to the votes of "the American people" in 2008 and 2012, as you have done, is to overlook the fact--intentionally, perhaps?--that an inordinate number of those voting for this community organizer were low-information voters, who just wanted all the freebies that Barack Obama was offering; and who preferred a democratic-socialist vision of America, not entirely unlike what exists nowadays in most European countries.) The mere fact that you are "unaware" of any violation of the US Constitution by Barack Obama is really not the central issue. Ultimately, the courts will decide the matter--although Barack Obama will probably be out of office by then; and the damage will have already been done. But at least a ruling against the president's (dictatorial) actions will serve as a precedent for the future.
My "pink" and "purple" example stated "equal in number and qualifications (merit) so what do you do after your efforts to "ensure" fail and the vast majority of the scholarships continue to go to "pink" for the next 40 years? How do you address the failure?
It wasn't the military defeat of Germany that lead to the peace since WW II. It was the post-conflict diplomacy. Germany also had it's ass handed to it on a shingle in WW I and that didn't result in a lasting peace because the post war diplomacy failed.
Netayahu has had opportunity after opportunity to secure a lasting peace with the Palestinians but has refused to even consider it for years. A lasting peace has to be based upon a win-win situation for both countries but Netayahu keep insisting on a win-lose where Israel wins and the Palestinians lose. For example I remember once when Netayahu insisted that the Palestinians could have a militry while Israel was going to militarily occupy the border so it could invade Palestine at any time without facing any military opposition. Netanyahu to this day, I believe, is insisting that the Palestinians "define the national character" of Israel as a "Jewish Nation" that Palestine doesn't even have the authority to do. It is the most illogical demand I've ever heard of.
Netayahu does not want peace with the Palestinians and never has. If he'd wanted a lasting peace he could easily have obtain a lasting peace based upon the mutual security of both Palestine and Israel.
I don't know how the courts are going to determine the "constitutionality" of anything President Obama has done because nothing he's done is being challenged on Constitutional grounds currently. We know that former President Bush was whacked by the Supreme Courtfor violating the Constitution related to the GITMO detainees but President Obama hasn't been whacked on anything and there are no pending lawsuit addressing constitutionalitly.
I am not sure how you can claim that President Obama "hasn't been whacked on anything" by the Supreme Court. In fact, the High Court ruled 9-0 that his "recess" appointments to the NLRB (when the Senate was not actually in recess) were unconstitutional: www.myheritage.org/news/unanimous-supreme-court-rules-against-the-obama-administrations-unconstitutional-power-grab/ Presumably, your "pink" and "purple" example is intended as a mere analogy to black people and white people in American society; and you believe that all efforts to end racial discrimination have "fail[ed]" miserably. But I do not agree. (Your position is one of The Victim Culture.) It really was not Germany per se that we defeated in the 1940s, but the Nazis. And it was not "diplomacy," but our nation's generosity, following WWII, that deserves to be hailed (think: the Marshall Plan, between 1948 and 1952). The Nazis were militarily defeated--as were all the Axis Powers. (Nowadays--and for a very long time now--Japan and Italy have also been our friends and allies.) I see that you have vacillated from claiming that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said something nefarious recently (which, of course, is simply an indefensible assertion) to claiming that he "never has" wanted peace with the Palestinians. After all, he has had the temerity to demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state (which, of course, is precisely what it is). (Oh, and I do not know how Israel's giving away a large portion of its territory would amount to a "win-win" situation, anymore than, say, America's giving up all the land west of the Mississippi River would be a "win" for America.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 30, 2015 12:57:02 GMT
My "pink" and "purple" example stated "equal in number and qualifications (merit) so what do you do after your efforts to "ensure" fail and the vast majority of the scholarships continue to go to "pink" for the next 40 years? How do you address the failure?
It wasn't the military defeat of Germany that lead to the peace since WW II. It was the post-conflict diplomacy. Germany also had it's ass handed to it on a shingle in WW I and that didn't result in a lasting peace because the post war diplomacy failed.
Netayahu has had opportunity after opportunity to secure a lasting peace with the Palestinians but has refused to even consider it for years. A lasting peace has to be based upon a win-win situation for both countries but Netayahu keep insisting on a win-lose where Israel wins and the Palestinians lose. For example I remember once when Netayahu insisted that the Palestinians could have a militry while Israel was going to militarily occupy the border so it could invade Palestine at any time without facing any military opposition. Netanyahu to this day, I believe, is insisting that the Palestinians "define the national character" of Israel as a "Jewish Nation" that Palestine doesn't even have the authority to do. It is the most illogical demand I've ever heard of.
Netayahu does not want peace with the Palestinians and never has. If he'd wanted a lasting peace he could easily have obtain a lasting peace based upon the mutual security of both Palestine and Israel.
I don't know how the courts are going to determine the "constitutionality" of anything President Obama has done because nothing he's done is being challenged on Constitutional grounds currently. We know that former President Bush was whacked by the Supreme Courtfor violating the Constitution related to the GITMO detainees but President Obama hasn't been whacked on anything and there are no pending lawsuit addressing constitutionalitly.
I am not sure how you can claim that President Obama "hasn't been whacked on anything" by the Supreme Court. In fact, the High Court ruled 9-0 that his "recess" appointments to the NLRB (when the Senate was not actually in recess) were unconstitutional: www.myheritage.org/news/unanimous-supreme-court-rules-against-the-obama-administrations-unconstitutional-power-grab/ Presumably, your "pink" and "purple" example is intended as a mere analogy to black people and white people in American society; and you believe that all efforts to end racial discrimination have "fail[ed]" miserably. But I do not agree. (Your position is one of The Victim Culture.) It really was not Germany per se that we defeated in the 1940s, but the Nazis. And it was not "diplomacy," but our nation's generosity, following WWII, that deserves to be hailed (think: the Marshall Plan, between 1948 and 1952). The Nazis were militarily defeated--as were all the Axis Powers. (Nowadays--and for a very long time now--Japan and Italy have also been our friends and allies.) I see that you have vacillated from claiming that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said something nefarious recently (which, of course, is simply an indefensible assertion) to claiming that he "never has" wanted peace with the Palestinians. After all, he has had the temerity to demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state (which, of course, is precisely what it is). (Oh, and I do not know how Israel's giving away a large portion of its territory would amount to a "win-win" situation, anymore than, say, America's giving up all the land west of the Mississippi River would be a "win" for America.)
Thank you for reminding me of the one Supreme Court decision that did "whack" President Obama. Of course the Senate was nefarious in it's false claim of being "in session" because it was conducting no business at the time except to claim it was in session when it wasn't. Virtually none of the members of the Senate were even in Washington DC at the time if I recall correctly. It is interesting politically that no senator called for a "quorum" vote before each of the procedural motions that continued the "Senate in session" motions because the quorum did not exist.
Most of those in the German Army were not Nazis and we were at war against and defeated the German Army. As you point out it was the Marshall Plan and other actions that were all "diplimatic" after the termination of hostilities and not "military victories" that resulted in the political changes in Germany, Italy, and Japan.
As for what Prime Minster Netanyahu said:
"JERUSALEM — Under pressure on the eve of a surprisingly close election, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Monday doubled down on his appeal to right-wing voters, declaring definitively that if he was returned to office he would never establish a Palestinian state.
The statement reversed Mr. Netanyahu’s endorsement of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a 2009 speech at Bar Ilan University, and fulfilled many world leaders’ suspicions that he was never really serious about peace negotiations."
www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/world/middleeast/benjamin-netanyahu-campaign-settlement.html?_r=0
Whether Israel is an apartheid "Jewish State" is not something that any other nation can establish by decree. It makes no more sense for the Palestinians to declare Israel a "Jewish State" than it would for Iran to declate Israel a "Muslim State" as neither has the authority to do so.
The Golan Heights, E Jerusalem, and West Bank are not Israeli territory and never have been under international laws (treaties) that Israel has agreed to abide by. The Israeli civilian immigration to these territories is in direct violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions according the every expert on International Laws and Treaties except, of course, for "Israeli experts" that would deny the sun exists if it benefited the nefarious political ambitions of Israel. The UN Security Council, that has sole international authority, already stated that Israel is required to withdraw from the occupied territories as a condition of peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 2, 2015 18:21:16 GMT
I am not sure how you can claim that President Obama "hasn't been whacked on anything" by the Supreme Court. In fact, the High Court ruled 9-0 that his "recess" appointments to the NLRB (when the Senate was not actually in recess) were unconstitutional: www.myheritage.org/news/unanimous-supreme-court-rules-against-the-obama-administrations-unconstitutional-power-grab/ Presumably, your "pink" and "purple" example is intended as a mere analogy to black people and white people in American society; and you believe that all efforts to end racial discrimination have "fail[ed]" miserably. But I do not agree. (Your position is one of The Victim Culture.) It really was not Germany per se that we defeated in the 1940s, but the Nazis. And it was not "diplomacy," but our nation's generosity, following WWII, that deserves to be hailed (think: the Marshall Plan, between 1948 and 1952). The Nazis were militarily defeated--as were all the Axis Powers. (Nowadays--and for a very long time now--Japan and Italy have also been our friends and allies.) I see that you have vacillated from claiming that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said something nefarious recently (which, of course, is simply an indefensible assertion) to claiming that he "never has" wanted peace with the Palestinians. After all, he has had the temerity to demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state (which, of course, is precisely what it is). (Oh, and I do not know how Israel's giving away a large portion of its territory would amount to a "win-win" situation, anymore than, say, America's giving up all the land west of the Mississippi River would be a "win" for America.)
Thank you for reminding me of the one Supreme Court decision that did "whack" President Obama. Of course the Senate was nefarious in it's false claim of being "in session" because it was conducting no business at the time except to claim it was in session when it wasn't. Virtually none of the members of the Senate were even in Washington DC at the time if I recall correctly. It is interesting politically that no senator called for a "quorum" vote before each of the procedural motions that continued the "Senate in session" motions because the quorum did not exist.
Most of those in the German Army were not Nazis and we were at war against and defeated the German Army. As you point out it was the Marshall Plan and other actions that were all "diplimatic" after the termination of hostilities and not "military victories" that resulted in the political changes in Germany, Italy, and Japan.
As for what Prime Minster Netanyahu said:
"JERUSALEM — Under pressure on the eve of a surprisingly close election, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Monday doubled down on his appeal to right-wing voters, declaring definitively that if he was returned to office he would never establish a Palestinian state.
The statement reversed Mr. Netanyahu’s endorsement of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a 2009 speech at Bar Ilan University, and fulfilled many world leaders’ suspicions that he was never really serious about peace negotiations."
www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/world/middleeast/benjamin-netanyahu-campaign-settlement.html?_r=0
Whether Israel is an apartheid "Jewish State" is not something that any other nation can establish by decree. It makes no more sense for the Palestinians to declare Israel a "Jewish State" than it would for Iran to declate Israel a "Muslim State" as neither has the authority to do so.
The Golan Heights, E Jerusalem, and West Bank are not Israeli territory and never have been under international laws (treaties) that Israel has agreed to abide by. The Israeli civilian immigration to these territories is in direct violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions according the every expert on International Laws and Treaties except, of course, for "Israeli experts" that would deny the sun exists if it benefited the nefarious political ambitions of Israel. The UN Security Council, that has sole international authority, already stated that Israel is required to withdraw from the occupied territories as a condition of peace.
Your appeal to "international authority" is quite revealing. If, for instance, the US Congress were to declare one thing, and the UN Security Council were to declare the exact opposite, I would go with the US Congress. Easily. And without the slightest hesitation. Any "treaties" notwithstanding. It really should not be too difficult to trace the founding of Israel, post-WWII, to the Holocaust. Its fundamental roots, therefore, are certainly as a Jewish state.
Your quote from the (left-leaning) New York Times is not actually a quote from Benjamin Netanyahu. It is, rather, the author's interpretation of his election-eve words. (I think I would place more emphasis on what Prime Minister Netanyahu said he meant than I would on some hostile columnist's interpretation of his words.) It is true that many in the German army of 70 years ago--probably "[m]ost"--were not dedicated Nazis, but were merely German men fighting for The Fatherland. But they still were representing Nazism--if the German army had emerged victorious, then Nazism itself would have necessarily been victorious also--so yes, we defeated the Nazis in WWII. We did not, however, defeat Germany itself; nor did we even want to. The Marshall Plan proves that point. If the Senate was indeed "nefarious," and making a "false claim" as concerning its being in session, it does seem odd that all nine members of the Supreme Court--including those justices who are naturally liberal--sided against President Obama on this matter. (Once again, this president has imagined that he is above the law; and that he can act, therefore, as some tinhorn dictator might.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 3, 2015 23:44:25 GMT
Your appeal to "international authority" is quite revealing. If, for instance, the US Congress were to declare one thing, and the UN Security Council were to declare the exact opposite, I would go with the US Congress. Easily. And without the slightest hesitation. Any "treaties" notwithstanding. It really should not be too difficult to trace the founding of Israel, post-WWII, to the Holocaust. Its fundamental roots, therefore, are certainly as a Jewish state.
Your quote from the (left-leaning) New York Times is not actually a quote from Benjamin Netanyahu. It is, rather, the author's interpretation of his election-eve words. (I think I would place more emphasis on what Prime Minister Netanyahu said he meant than I would on some hostile columnist's interpretation of his words.)
Recent events lead me to focus more on this than on addressing the other part of your post on nefarious practices by Congress.
While the details remain to be finalized the President Obama announced that the framework of a nuclear agreement has been reached with Iran and the specifics are outlined in the following five page document.
content.govdelivery.com/attachments/USSTATEBPA/2015/04/02/file_attachments/378460/Media%2BNote%2B-%2BApril%2B2%2B2015%2B-%2BLausanne.pdf
I've read through it and it appears to be very comprehensive and as implemented it will certainly ensure that Iran will not be able to produce a nuclear weapon which was the purpose of the negotiations. More importantly to me is that it also reveals to me is that Iran never had any intention of ever producing a nuclear weapons, a claim Iran has repeatedly made that many have been very skeptical of, because it would not agree to the provisions of this agreement if it ever had any intentions of ever producing a nuclear weapon. All-in-all I'm very satisfied with the provisions outlined in the agreement.
But let's look at news coming from Israeli PM Netanyahu today.
"Israel demands that any final agreement with Iran will include a clear and unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel's right to exist,' he said.
"Israel will not accept an agreement which allows a country that vows to annihilate us to develop nuclear weapons, period."
Israel is the Middle East's sole, albeit unacknowledged, nuclear power.
news.yahoo.com/netanyahu-convenes-security-chiefs-over-iran-nuclear-accord-105738696.html
First of all the above provisions on the deal with Iran would prevent it from producing a nuclear weapon and Israel remains the only nation representing a nuclear threat in the Middle East. To my knowledge all of the Middle East nations, including Iran, have expressed support for the Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone (WMDFZ) proposal expanded on longstanding calls to establish a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East except Israel. If Israel really wants to eliminate the threat of WMD's including nuclear weapons from the Middle East that can threaten Israel then it needs to support this treaty and be willing to also eliminate it's own WMD's and nuclear weapons.
Next is addressing Israel's "right to exist" and there is only one reason why there are nations in the Middle East calling for the annihilation of Israel. It is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has been going on since 1948. If the Palestinians and Israel reach a diplomatic peace agreement that ends the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the the domino effect is that all of the Muslim nations will honor that and recognize Israel's right to exist. The Palestinians have to formally recognized Israel's right to exist by a peace treaty. This is not recognition of Israel as a "Jewish State" but instead is recognition of Israel as a "Sovereign State" and there is a huge difference between the two. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians hinges upon and the Palestinians will not agree to peace (and recognition of Israel's right to exist) that that is that Israel must comply with International Law (Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions) and UN Security Council resolutions (UNSC 242). Like it or not those are the only conditions acceptable and Israel is going to have to comply if it seeks peace with the Palestinians and recognition of it's "right to exist" by the Palestinians and the other nations, like Iran, in the Middle East.
Israel doesn't lose anything it has a right to by complying with International Law or UN Security Council resolutions. By comlying it can achieve recognition of it's Right to Exist and peace with the Palestinians and the other nations in the Middle East. It is the only way that Israel can accomplish this because it's demands are justifiably falling on deaf ears.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 3, 2015 23:49:43 GMT
If the Senate was indeed "nefarious," and making a "false claim" as concerning its being in session, it does seem odd that all nine members of the Supreme Court--including those justices who are naturally liberal--sided against President Obama on this matter. (Once again, this president has imagined that he is above the law; and that he can act, therefore, as some tinhorn dictator might.)
Just because something is "legal" or "Constitutional" doesn't imply it can't also be nefarious. In this case the Senate Rules that allow the Senate to falsely claim it's in session when in reality it's not is both "legal" and "Constitutional" but it's unquestionably a nefarious practice. The Supreme Court was absolutely correct in it's decision even though the Senate rule is nefarious in it's intent because it misrepresents what the Senate is actually doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 6, 2015 18:17:50 GMT
If the Senate was indeed "nefarious," and making a "false claim" as concerning its being in session, it does seem odd that all nine members of the Supreme Court--including those justices who are naturally liberal--sided against President Obama on this matter. (Once again, this president has imagined that he is above the law; and that he can act, therefore, as some tinhorn dictator might.)
Just because something is "legal" or "Constitutional" doesn't imply it can't also be nefarious. In this case the Senate Rules that allow the Senate to falsely claim it's in session when in reality it's not is both "legal" and "Constitutional" but it's unquestionably a nefarious practice. The Supreme Court was absolutely correct in it's decision even though the Senate rule is nefarious in it's intent because it misrepresents what the Senate is actually doing.
Apparently, you view some of what is both "legal" and "constitutional" to also be "nefarious"... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 7, 2015 12:14:53 GMT
Just because something is "legal" or "Constitutional" doesn't imply it can't also be nefarious. In this case the Senate Rules that allow the Senate to falsely claim it's in session when in reality it's not is both "legal" and "Constitutional" but it's unquestionably a nefarious practice. The Supreme Court was absolutely correct in it's decision even though the Senate rule is nefarious in it's intent because it misrepresents what the Senate is actually doing.
Apparently, you view some of what is both "legal" and "constitutional" to also be "nefarious"...
I would state that claiming you're "in session" when you're not conducting any government business is a misuse of the term "in session" and that does not fit with the intent of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court deferred to the Senate Rules, which it is prone to do, as opposed to imposing a Constitutional criteria in the case. Personally I'd refer to the intent of the Constitution as opposed to deferring to the Senate Rules but that's just me and Supreme Court precedent has shown that the Court will allow a lot of nefarious government actions of highly questionable Constitutionality by both the Congress and the President historically based upon the "separation of powers" doctrine.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 9, 2015 6:20:35 GMT
Apparently, you view some of what is both "legal" and "constitutional" to also be "nefarious"...
I would state that claiming you're "in session" when you're not conducting any government business is a misuse of the term "in session" and that does not fit with the intent of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court deferred to the Senate Rules, which it is prone to do, as opposed to imposing a Constitutional criteria in the case. Personally I'd refer to the intent of the Constitution as opposed to deferring to the Senate Rules but that's just me and Supreme Court precedent has shown that the Court will allow a lot of nefarious government actions of highly questionable Constitutionality by both the Congress and the President historically based upon the "separation of powers" doctrine.
Your view that "the [Supreme] Court will allow a lot of nefarious government actions of highly questionable Constitutionality by both the Congress and the President" says it all. Of course, it is not quite correct. The SCOTUS even reprimanded the president recently for his "recess" appointments to the NLRB (as I noted previously in this thread)... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 10, 2015 13:05:54 GMT
I would state that claiming you're "in session" when you're not conducting any government business is a misuse of the term "in session" and that does not fit with the intent of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court deferred to the Senate Rules, which it is prone to do, as opposed to imposing a Constitutional criteria in the case. Personally I'd refer to the intent of the Constitution as opposed to deferring to the Senate Rules but that's just me and Supreme Court precedent has shown that the Court will allow a lot of nefarious government actions of highly questionable Constitutionality by both the Congress and the President historically based upon the "separation of powers" doctrine.
Your view that "the [Supreme] Court will allow a lot of nefarious government actions of highly questionable Constitutionality by both the Congress and the President" says it all. Of course, it is not quite correct. The SCOTUS even reprimanded the president recently for his "recess" appointments to the NLRB (as I noted previously in this thread)...
As was noted the President was reprimanded because of the "Senate Rules" that are juxtaposed to the intent of the Constitution. The Constitution does allow recess appointments when the Senate is "not in session" (i.e. not conducting the business of government) while the Senate Rules allow the Senate to claim it's "in session" (conducting the business of government) when, in fact, it is not conducting any actual business of government. The "Senate Rule" is contrary to the intent of the Constitution and it was based upon this fact that the president was reprimanded. The Supreme Court deferred to the "Senate Rule" when clearly the "Senate Rule" was of dubious Constitutionality because the Senate was clearly not conducting the business of government (i.e. in session).
By analogy it would be like paying a worker for hours worked based upon them filling out their timecard for hours where they weren't on the job doing anything.
We've also seen the Supreme Court strike down statutory provisions intended to ensure that the Constitutional Rights of the Person are protected and, in doing so, established a mandate for Congress to act but Congress has not acted. In 2013 the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act stating it was out-of-date and required revision by Congress to protect the Right to Vote for Americans. To date Congress has not revised Section 4 and failure to revise Section 4 is allowing the nefarious violation of the Right to Vote for millions of Americans. Instead of an easy to enforce statutory law protecting the Right to Vote the violations have to addressed upon a much higher standard of Constitutional scrutiny by the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 13, 2015 2:27:14 GMT
Your view that "the [Supreme] Court will allow a lot of nefarious government actions of highly questionable Constitutionality by both the Congress and the President" says it all. Of course, it is not quite correct. The SCOTUS even reprimanded the president recently for his "recess" appointments to the NLRB (as I noted previously in this thread)...
As was noted the President was reprimanded because of the "Senate Rules" that are juxtaposed to the intent of the Constitution. The Constitution does allow recess appointments when the Senate is "not in session" (i.e. not conducting the business of government) while the Senate Rules allow the Senate to claim it's "in session" (conducting the business of government) when, in fact, it is not conducting any actual business of government. The "Senate Rule" is contrary to the intent of the Constitution and it was based upon this fact that the president was reprimanded. The Supreme Court deferred to the "Senate Rule" when clearly the "Senate Rule" was of dubious Constitutionality because the Senate was clearly not conducting the business of government (i.e. in session).
By analogy it would be like paying a worker for hours worked based upon them filling out their timecard for hours where they weren't on the job doing anything.
We've also seen the Supreme Court strike down statutory provisions intended to ensure that the Constitutional Rights of the Person are protected and, in doing so, established a mandate for Congress to act but Congress has not acted. In 2013 the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act stating it was out-of-date and required revision by Congress to protect the Right to Vote for Americans. To date Congress has not revised Section 4 and failure to revise Section 4 is allowing the nefarious violation of the Right to Vote for millions of Americans. Instead of an easy to enforce statutory law protecting the Right to Vote the violations have to addressed upon a much higher standard of Constitutional scrutiny by the Supreme Court.
Your basic position seems to be that "the Senate rules" governing this matter are inherently "nefarious." Thankfully, the Supreme Court did not see it this way. Thankfully also, the most "nefarious" thing about the Senate--the former Majority Leader (and now Minority Leader), Harry Reid of Nevada, will not be seeking re-election... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 13, 2015 12:53:41 GMT
Your basic position seems to be that "the Senate rules" governing this matter are inherently "nefarious." Thankfully, the Supreme Court did not see it this way. Thankfully also, the most "nefarious" thing about the Senate--the former Majority Leader (and now Minority Leader), Harry Reid of Nevada, will not be seeking re-election...
I find the elected politicans often engage in nefarious actions that are detrimental to the People of the United States and that applies to virtually every politican I'm aware of. It is the very rare politican that places the American People above their political agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 15, 2015 5:58:26 GMT
Your basic position seems to be that "the Senate rules" governing this matter are inherently "nefarious." Thankfully, the Supreme Court did not see it this way. Thankfully also, the most "nefarious" thing about the Senate--the former Majority Leader (and now Minority Leader), Harry Reid of Nevada, will not be seeking re-election... I find the elected politicans often engage in nefarious actions that are detrimental to the People of the United States and that applies to virtually every politican I'm aware of. It is the very rare politican that places the American People above their political agenda.
I would agree that most politicians (in both major parties) are power hungry, to one extent or another; and that they are willing, therefore, to compromise their principles (if they have any) in order to further their respective political careers. But I certainly do not see anything "nefarious" about their using Senate rules to the maximum effect... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 16, 2015 10:54:28 GMT
I find the elected politicans often engage in nefarious actions that are detrimental to the People of the United States and that applies to virtually every politican I'm aware of. It is the very rare politican that places the American People above their political agenda.
I would agree that most politicians (in both major parties) are power hungry, to one extent or another; and that they are willing, therefore, to compromise their principles (if they have any) in order to further their respective political careers. But I certainly do not see anything "nefarious" about their using Senate rules to the maximum effect...
As I noted for the Senate to claim it's "In Session" under "Senate Rules" when it's not conducting the business of government (and when most of the Senators weren't even in Washington DC) is just like an hourly workers signing their timecard for working when they're at home drinking martinis.
It's dishonest (and nefarious).
While you might embrace dishonesty by our elected representatives in government I certainly do not.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 19, 2015 23:31:57 GMT
I would agree that most politicians (in both major parties) are power hungry, to one extent or another; and that they are willing, therefore, to compromise their principles (if they have any) in order to further their respective political careers. But I certainly do not see anything "nefarious" about their using Senate rules to the maximum effect...
As I noted for the Senate to claim it's "In Session" under "Senate Rules" when it's not conducting the business of government (and when most of the Senators weren't even in Washington DC) is just like an hourly workers signing their timecard for working when they're at home drinking martinis.
It's dishonest (and nefarious).
While you might embrace dishonesty by our elected representatives in government I certainly do not.
A worker who signs his (or her) time card while "at home drinking martinis"--or simply not at work, whatever the specifics of the case might be--is acting illegally. And if it can be proven, then he (or she) should be immediately disciplined. I am not at all certain what you consider illegal, however, about the actions taken under Senate rules... |
|
