[excon]

Hello Rightys:

It appears that George Bush has taken on some additional duties for himself(and I use the term loosely). You could argue that he hasn't, and you'd be wrong. However, my question isn't about him.

Of course, if his expanded view of the presidency isn't curtailed, whoever succeeds him will have those same expanded powers. I just wonder if you want Hillary to have them too?

excon

[Wondergirl]

I'm guessing they won't be able to stuff the toothpaste back into the tube once the horse has left the barn.

[BABRAM]

It depends on the specifics and circumstance, but generally speaking "yes." Now I think you are suggesting to enactments that end up in war. Without details it's hard for me to comment on. However, as with just about anything in life, when one person takes on additional duties he/she can become overloaded and the attention to details sometimes lost. I do think we may be slowly slipping away from the original concept on many fronts, I prefer a checks and balance system throughout the govt without exceptions.


Bobby

[inthebox]

Hello Rightys:

It appears that George Bush has taken on some additional duties for himself(and I use the term loosely). You could argue that he hasn't, and you'd be wrong. However, my question isn't about him.

Of course, if his expanded view of the presidency isn't curtailed, whoever succeeds him will have those same expanded powers. I just wonder if you want Hillary to have them too?

excon

It seems like each branch of government is expanding its "duties."




Grace and Peace

:eek:

[Choux]

Republicans have been quoted as saying that the election in 2008 will be another big loss for their party.

Whatever may happen in the future, we know that Democrats are watchdogs for American citizen's rights; it would be difficult for a Democratic President to continue Bush's presidential policy of dismissing citizen's guaranteed rights without some 'splainin' to do.

[speechlesstx]

Ex,

I don't want Hillary to have ANY powers. Depending on who her VP may be I might actually be in favor of one of those 'shadow presidencies.' :D

[ETWolverine]

Hello Rightys:

It appears that George Bush has taken on some additional duties for himself(and I use the term loosely). You could argue that he hasn't, and you'd be wrong. However, my question isn't about him.

Which duties would those be? I haven't seen him excersize any authority not excersized by past presidents during times of war. So which "duties" are you referring to?

Of course, if his expanded view of the presidency isn't curtailed, whoever succeeds him will have those same expanded powers. I just wonder if you want Hillary to have them too?

Excon

Nope. I don't want her to have ANY powers of the presidency. But of course, that only becomes a problem if she gets elected.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Republicans have been quoted as saying that the election in 2008 will be another big loss for their party.

And Democrats have been quoted on both sides of the issues.

Whatever may happen in the future, we know that Democrats are watchdogs for American citizen's rights; it would be difficult for a Democratic President to continue Bush's presidential policy of dismissing citizen's guaranteed rights without some 'splainin' to do.

This "Democrats are defenders of our rights" line I hear so much has to be one the most blatantly hypocritical claims ever. I don't recall Republicans being champions of speech codes, hate speech laws, censorship of religious speech, elimination of religion in the public square, taking away our constitutional right to keep and bear arms - not to mention our right to keep more of our hard-earned money.

Here are some other dandy liberal encroachments on our rights:

No touching, kissing or hugging allowed...

For more than a year now, FIRE has been pressuring Gettysburg College to revise its Sexual Misconduct Policy, which is so broad in scope that it draws no distinction between an innocent, spontaneous hug and forcible rape. Under the policy, “consent” to sexual interaction is defined as “the act of willingly and verbally agreeing (for example, by stating ‘yes’) to engage in specific sexual conduct. If either person at any point in a sexual encounter does not give continuing and active consent, all sexual contact must cease, even if consent was given earlier.” (Emphasis added.) The policy’s broad definition of sexual interaction includes not only sex acts but also “brushing, touching, grabbing, pinching, patting, hugging, and kissing.”

When Hezbollah Trumps Old Glory...

This week, Campus Alert—FIRE’s weekly column in the New York Post—focuses on the situation at San Francisco State University (SFSU), where the school’s College Republicans filed a federal lawsuit last week alleging that SFSU administrators violated the group’s First Amendment rights by staging a five-month investigation into the group’s activities at an anti-terrorism rally.

Specifically, SFSU’s investigation centered on whether the College Republicans were guilty of “actions of incivility,” among other charges, for stepping on homemade Hezbollah and Hamas flags. However, as today’s column points out, the United States Supreme Court has consistently held that flag desecration is protected political expression under the First Amendment, a fact SFSU knew when investigating the College Republicans’ “offense”:

Even though the flag-stomping was protected speech—a fact pointed out twice to SFSU President Robert Corrigan in letters from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education—SFSU administrators decided to put the College Republicans on trial for “attempts to incite violence and create a hostile environment” and “actions of incivility.” An SFSU spokesperson even told the San Francisco Chronicle that the real issue was “the desecration of Allah.”

Flush the cross - but not the Koran

Troubling news over the weekend: a former student at Pace University in New York has been arrested for hate crimes for allegedly placing a Koran in a toilet on two occasions. While treating the Koran in this way could obviously anger the Muslim community, the arrest seems to be completely at odds with well-established Supreme Court precedent. As we explained in the San Francisco State University case, the Constitution protects the right to engage in symbolic and political speech—including the right to burn an American flag or to burn crosses as political expression. The Constitution, furthermore, does not allow the state to impose on Americans the norms of any particular religion.

Big Brother: Coming to a Campus Near You

Today’s Inside Higher Ed reports on the effort by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada to require colleges to take more direct action in fighting “campus based digital theft” of movies and music. File sharing, popular even when I was in college in the late 1990s, is by all reports going on in epic proportions on today’s campus. The speed and unfiltered nature of campus computer networks is largely responsible for making this possible, and the fact that so many young adults are connected in one place makes it part of the culture on campus. Simply put, it’s easy to trade music, or even whole, fairly high-definition movies and TV shows, with your friends on campus and beyond.

Sen. Reid would like to change that by requiring colleges to put into place technological obstacles to this file sharing. The IHE article does a pretty good job of explaining colleges’ objections, which are that the technology really doesn’t work well, and it might end up blocking legitimate network traffic along with illegal file sharing.

What does this have to do with freedom of expression? After all, the First Amendment does not protect your right to violate copyright laws. However, the potential solutions to this problem are solutions that should worry civil liberties advocates. For in order to block illegal file sharing but allow legal file sharing, there is only one option: find a way to inspect the contents of the files being traded, or the hard drives of students on campus.

FIRE has repeatedly lamented that Facebook and other social networking sites have granted administrators a view into student interaction that was formerly outside administrators’ control—a view that is increasingly leading to punishment for protected expression. The effort to stop illegal file sharing, however, could easily result in a far stricter regime of censorship. The infrastructure required to truly satisfy the recording industry’s desires would put college administrators in the position to inspect every bit and byte of network traffic through the college’s system (or, worse, on users’ hard drives). When the FBI tried something like this to catch actual criminals (its Carnivore e-mail “wiretapping” system), it resulted in an enormous uproar. Now the Senate is proposing that colleges put in place an even more robust system of monitoring that is designed to constantly monitor every student—whether or not they are even suspected of a crime—and that would enable a massive expansion of the reach of speech codes and selective repression.

When you get down to it, this is nothing more or less than a variant of wiretapping—a procedure that is accepted in our society because only the police can legally do it, it is hard to get a warrant to do so, and because it is justified as a tool for use against mobsters, terrorists, and other undesirable elements of society. Requiring colleges to run a huge wiretapping system on every single college student is something else entirely and multiplies the opportunities for abuse by a million-fold. The possibilities for censorship—or even blackmail—are immense. And if the technology can be used to stop one kind of forbidden activity—illegal file sharing—it can certainly be used to stop, for instance, “material, which in the sole judgment of the University is offensive.” (Thanks, Northeastern University.) Senator Reid should carefully consider all the ramifications of this legislation before requiring America’s universities to turn college students’ computers into the telescreen of modern times.

I could do this all day, so don't tell me "Democrats are watchdogs for American citizen's rights."

[Fr_Chuck]

Yes things have all went down hill, since people like Lincoln suspended Habis rules, had citizens thrown out of the county with no court hearings and more.

[Dark_crow]

Hello Rightys:

It appears that George Bush has taken on some additional duties for himself(and I use the term loosely). You could argue that he hasn't, and you'd be wrong. However, my question isn't about him.

Of course, if his expanded view of the presidency isn't curtailed, whoever succeeds him will have those same expanded powers. I just wonder if you want Hillary to have them too?

excon

You must see things the way they are: the power struggle between Democrats and republicans is no less than the struggle between two competing fascist forces; so let’s not have any of this crap about either protecting the everyday worker, what is protected is power and property.

[tomder55]

The struggle between the Democrats and Republicans is the same as the Federalists and anti-Federalists ;the same as the Whigs who became the Republicans and the Republicans who became the Democrats . There were different issues that were at stake but when brought to the basic it was a differing visions of the republic . Both sides were initially from the "founders " so it is difficult to divine what the intent of the founders when they themselves were not monolithic even as they forged the compromise known as our Constitution.

Excon it would be useful if you could explain the expanded powers you believe Bush to have seized. I imagine I'll probably find the example in our history where a President no considered great when well beyond the powers Bush as inherent in the Executive.

[sGt HarDKorE]

Barack Obama is better than Hillary ever will be. I may be ignornant, but he is who I would vote for. I went to the democrat convention in detroit and he is really cool. Im in the Students for Obama video :D

[speechlesstx]

excon it would be useful if you could explain the expanded powers you believe Bush to have seized. I imagine I'll probably find the example in our history where a President no considered great when well beyond the powers Bush as inherent in the Executive.

Maybe it's those new spy powers the Dems are ready to give him. :D

[excon]

Hello again:

He has taken signing statements to new heights. They're ALL illegal. He has used executive privilege to thwart congress. He politicized the Justice Department. He spy's on Americans without warrants. He took away our Habeas Corpus right. He, just recently, signed an executive order that says he can decide if you've contributed to a terrorist organization and takes ALL your money - all by himself.

And, I've only just begun.

excon

[tomder55]

Since a signing statement has no legal or constitutional force behind it then it is simply rhetoric . Why does it concern you . If it says that he will notr enforce the law passed by Congress there is nothing illegal in that . If he acts against the provision of a law passed then it could be subject to a court challenge. Short of a line item veto this is the best the President can do to make an opinion of legislation that is passed . You have to admit that most laws have a whole lot of BS added to them that are unrelated riders. At least President Bush is honest enough up front to call Bull dung bull dung.

Justice has always been politicized... just think back to the early 1960s and your hero JFK for examples of that.

[tomder55]

Steve

Congressional Democrats with any brains realize that FISA provisions are hopelessly out of date.Even the traitor Jay Rockeffeller does I guess. Lets take bets on passage before the summer recess.

What Excon calls "spying on Americans " is an exaggerated overstatement. In fact the whole posting is an overstatement similar to Harry Reid blaming Bush for the Minn. Bridge collapse.

Excon;again all you need to do to find examples of serious abuses of domestic spying then look toward the Kennedy Justice Dept. Don't believe me ? Just ask the followers of MLK. Nothing the Bush Adm. Has done comes close to that.

[excon]

Excon;again all you need to do to find examples of serious abuses of domestic spying then look toward the Kennedy Justice Dept.

Hello again, tom:

So, if Bush were to start taking slaves, instead of condeming him, you would say, well look back at all those Dems who were slave owners...

Your arguments are hollow.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, tom:

So, if Bush were to start taking slaves, instead of condeming him, you would say, well look back at all those Dems who were slave owners...

Your arguments are hollow.

Excon

Bad argument, excon.

Slavery is indeed Unconstitutional. Says so right there in the Constitution.

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

But nothing Bush has done is unconstitutional, all of it has legal precedent from other presidents, and is in fact provided for by the War Powers Act.

You can't compare slavery to Bush's war-time actions.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

What Excon calls "spying on Americans " is an exaggerated overstatement. In fact the whole posting is an overstatement similar to Harry Reid blaming Bush for the Minn. Bridge collapse.

Tom, we know it's exaggerated, but what isn't these days? If it weren't so common now I would tend to be in disbelief that the left is already blaming Bush for the bridge collapse.

"We should look at this tragedy that occurred as a wake-up call for us," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat. "We have all over the country a crumbling infrastructure; highways, bridges and dams. We really need to take a hard look at this."

Rep. James Oberstar, the Minnesota Democrat who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, blamed President George W. Bush's administration for shortchanging road and bridge repair in a highway funding bill two years ago.

Bush, he said, "failed to support a robust investment in surface transportation," adding the president insisted on only $2 billion a year for bridge reconstruction when lawmakers were pushing for $3 billion a year.

When Congress next rewrites the highway funding bill in 2009, "we're not going to settle for a bargain-basement transportation" policy, Oberstar said.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who chairs the appropriations subcommittee that funds transportation programs, slammed President Bush for threatening to veto the transportation bill because it exceeds his initial budget request.

“This is what I worry about every day. The lack of investment in infrastructure is frightening,” Murray said. “This is what [Bush] is threatening to veto -- investment in infrastructure for [roads] we go to work on every day.”

Reid even suggested that Bush has been too distracted by the Iraq war and post-Sept. 11 national security needs to focus on the country’s water, sewer and transportation infrastructure.

“Since 9/11, we have taken our eye off the ball,” Reid said.

Well, Reid is right about that last part... the Democrats have certainly been distracted thanks to an epidemic of BDS. That they would launch into their "blame Bush mode" less than 24 hrs into a tragedy like this bridge collapse is beyond contemptible.

[sGt HarDKorE]

You all hate bush, and yet he was elected TWICE. I think its time to shut up, because you voted for him to represent YOU.