[Rhodes22-list] Reply to Slim (Politics - Government 101)

[stan]

Ed,

Your reliance on the constitution for us to allow your hero Cheney to be 
allowed to do whatever he wants, falls short of one major aspect of the law. 
Take it from a pro se arm chain lawyer who has taken a case all the way to 
the US Supreme court single handed, that "Intent" is the decision maker of 
all cases.  I doubt that it was the intent of the framers of the 
constitution to have it set up to allow one single person, among all of our 
elected officials, be constitutionally exempt from everything and that 
person being the vice president no less.

this is another case I would not mind taking to the Supreme Court (even with 
all its conservative judges) if you insist on being the other side.

stan/PS

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Alm" <stevenalm at gmail.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Reply to Slim (Politics - Government 101)


> Ed,
>
> I expected a snotty reply from you, of course.  Have you seen/read the 
> news
> this week or not?  Cheney claims he can keep all the secrets he wants
> because he's not part of the executive branch but rather the congressional
> because he decides ties in the Senate.  At the same time he evokes 
> executive
> privilege.  Brad would have us believe this is some sort of liberal media
> spin.  It's not.  Just ask John Stewart or Stephen Colbert--these are the
> real facts.
>
> As for Iraq, why is it so hard for conservative to see that this is an
> unwinable conflict?  Is it because they like to say there are lots and 
> lots
> of good things happening out there that are not being reported by the
> liberal slant?  Talk about denial!  How many times recently have you seen
> retired military commanders come on TV and condemn what's happening over
> there?  Is that spin too?  I don't remember another time with so much open
> defiance among top leaders.
>
> And as for Government 101, Ed, Last I heard our government is supposed to 
> be
> a Republic and not a Dictatorship.  That means we get to decide.  Do you
> think it's just spin when the media reports how low public support is for
> this president and his handleing all this?  Apparently a lot of otherwise
> reasonable people think that counts for nothing.  This administration is
> completely ignoring the bulk of the country, the congress and top military
> advisers, and most other free countries and doing whatever it damn well
> pleases.
>
> Slim
>
> On 6/26/07, TN Rhodey <tnrhodey at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ed, I guess maybe we should define "boss". In my way of thinking the
>> "boss"
>> is the person(s) who can fire you. The only way to "fire" the VP is
>> impeachment. It requires votes from both the House and Senate. First only
>> a
>> member of the House can initiate impeachment; this can be done without
>> existing indictment. From there it goes to Judiciary Committee and then 
>> to
>> House (requires majority) vote.The VP presides over no-executive
>> impeachment
>> proceedings in the Senate. The Chief Justice would preside over Pres and
>> VP
>> impeachments.The Senate needs a 2/3 vote. The Senate can not initiate
>> impeachment proceedings. The VP is not his own "boss" in that the
>> President
>> can't certainly decide to force the VP out for "party" interests. All
>> elected officials work for us the humble tax payers. It is interesting to
>> note that originally the VP was the runner up in the Presidential
>> election.
>> It is pretty obvious why this didn't last long.
>>
>> AC race 3 just started!
>>
>> Wally
>>
>> On 6/26/07, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Slim:
>> >
>> > I appreciate that you were a music major in college(?).  However, a
>> course
>> > in government is in order.  You might just pick up a copy of the U. S.
>> > Constitution and study it going to your next gig.
>> >
>> > The Office of Vice President of the U. S. is a Constitutional
>> Office.  It
>> > is
>> > not beholding or at the beckoning of Congress, but rather the Vice
>> > President
>> > sits as head of the Senate.
>> >
>> > This is a question of who is boss?   And if you read the U. S.
>> > Constitution
>> > it does not say that Congress is the Vice President's boss.  And if you
>> > read
>> > further, regarding the Executive Branch, it does not say the President
>> is
>> > his boss either.  Hum, does this mean that in routine or ordinary
>> matters,
>> > as long as they are not criminal he is his own boss?  Yup.
>> >
>> > In conclusion, unless he has committed a criminal act for which he is
>> > indictable, and I would point out that Fitzgerald did not find that,
>> then
>> > Congress can say all they want, but really are wrong.  They 
>> > collectively
>> > need to read the U. S. Constitution.
>> >
>> > After you read the U. S. Constitution, will you cite specifics to
>> > substantiate your view.
>> >
>> > Ed K
>> > Greenville, SC, USA
>> > Addendum:  Political Cartoon:
>> > http://www.nabble.com/file/p11304089/times%2B%25237.bmp times+%237.bmp
>> > --
>> > View this message in context:
>> >
>> http://www.nabble.com/Reply-to-Slim-%28Politics---Government-101%29-tf3981896.html#a11304089
>> > Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >
>> > __________________________________________________
>> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list