Ricardo is a Useful Idiot
This is not a dig at your intelligence, in fact the ranks of Useful Idiots are overpopulated by people who consider themselves to be part of the intelligentsia.
Believers (misguided or otherwise) do not swing elections. The election of Obama was due in large part to the votes of white, 'independents.' The very same people he is and has been losing in droves. These 'independents' took everything the main stream media fed them last year, hook line and sinker.
They have been jarred out of their trances and are starting to pay attention, probably for the first time in their lives (doesn't bode well for candidates dependent upon the mainstream media as part of their campaign efforts)
A monger (who clearly does not rise to the ranks of the intelligentsia) made this observation back in July:
[QUOTE]That said, America (our America) is noticing. The pendulum has swung and will cut very deep on its rebound.[/QUOTE]
Esteemed Posters - The line and crossing it
My posts over the past weeks have elicited an interesting array of comments. I now wonder if the title of the forum would be more accurately titled "American Politics As Practiced during the Obama Administration - Submit pro-Administration Views At Your Own Risk."
One faction of respected Forum members including Jackson, Sidney, Alamo and a few others opines that:
1. My respect for the current President of the United States who was elected by a large majority of its citizens in a free election is misplaced as for some reason I don't recognize the fact that he is a "criminal" or "socialist" who is in the process of destroying America or worse.
2. My economic views - despite my professional training, work experience in government, business, consulting and writing, along with the concurrence of the highly-regarded business leaders and the majority of respected economists across the globe - are bogus and reflect a basic ignorance of capitalism.
3. My attempts at providing AP members for their consideration an alternate point of view generally supportive of the new President and of what is going on back in the states including analysis, factual information and ideas are mostly worthy of contempt.
4. I am seriously misguided because I don't view government as evil or public servants as lower life forms who all just feed at the public trough.
5. My "left slanted" views are "crap" based on some form of "indoctrination."
While another faction, which doesn't share the views expressed by my more frequent detractors, have offered public and private encouragement. They say it is about time someone on the forum with a brain, balls and actual knowledge is giving the President's critics a run for their money. I am advised to "hang in there."
What's a thoughtful person to do?
Am I the guilty party who went over the line? Did I err in taking offense at Alamo's claim that ""government at every level is a cancer and if you let it grow it will kill the patient!"
In the light of day this morning I think I would have been wiser to ignore his post. Rereading it I can see its self-contained fallacy needed no amplification from me? I never considered perhaps he was referring exclusively to the Argentine government. No argument there!
Still, after a few glasses of Pinot Noir last night, understandably, I did find a bit offensive, his inference that my work in public service and the good, hard working, dedicated people I knew and know in government actually posed an existential threat to the survival of society as we were spreading a "cancer."
Yet, despite our back and forty, I still think my adversaries here are descent guys and we all share much of what is enjoyable as we experience the BA experience.
I would bet if Jackson started a forum "Argentine Politics during the Kirchner Administration" we would be falling all over ourselves in agreement - that is before the site got closed down!
Bankruptcy is a good starting place!
Not sure which law you're speaking about Sydney. Is going bankrupt illegal in the USA? Do you mean personally bankrupt, the country, or some other entity?
If he's breaking laws, why doesn't someone take him to court?
Have a good trip, but hurry back, there are people here waiting for an answer!
The Constitution, laws, Obama, Jackson and Sidney
Jackson:
I just came from a great concert by the brilliant American jazz pianist, Brad Meldhau, at the Gran Rex and decided to see what's shaking on AP. I see things are SOP on the great pages.
After I read your, Steve's, Stan's and Schmoj's comments, out of respect for the encouragement I have received from numerous fellow AP posters, I offer comment on the on-going colloquy.
Perhaps we should give Sidney the opportunity to complete his travels and then provide his own explanation of his claim that Obama is a "serious violator of US laws" unless he has appointed you his spokesman. (I would prefer Dana Perino, W's former flack. She is blonder, more slippery and hotter)
In any case your initial tentative defense of him includes a creative and somewhat novel take on constitutional law. I regret to observe your understanding of it is rather shaky.
In your parlance, a President can possibly violate the US Constitution by overstepping his constitutional authority, however "it's not a violation of the Constitution until the Supreme Court makes a specific ruling."
WRONG!
If a President oversteps his constitutional authority, he (or someday she) has violated the law. If a Presidential act ends up before the court on a claim that it violated the constitution and the court finds it didn't, obviously, the President is home free. However, should SCOTUS rule otherwise, first the President must cease and desist from continuing to violate the constitution and the law. Then as regards to any prosecution of a Presidential crime, it is up to the Justice Department to proceed with a criminal case if it deems it is warranted and / or for the Congress to decide whether to proceed with impeachment proceedings if it deems the President's conduct warrants removal from office.
You then state some undefined Presidential behavior: "is not a criminal act until the Congress passes a law that makes it one, and even then said newly-enacted law would not be retroactive to prior acts."
AGAIN WRONG!
In truth, other than having the process of law-making backwards, I have no fucking idea what you are talking about with this statement and my guess is neither do you.
As for the correct process of making law (remember I worked as a senior aide in the United States Senate for four years) when Congress passes a law and the President signs it, if it includes provisions that require adherence to specific actions or behavior, any acts in violation of such provisions by a President or anyone else is illegal and subject to prosecution and punishment.
I hope this clarifies your misconceptions.
In our lifetime, only one President ever claimed that if the President does something, just because he is President it is legal. That was Tricky Dick Nixon who made that statement to an incredulous David Frost in the famous TV interviews. At the time he was ex-President Nixon and his claim, which was absurd on its face, helped turn him from a national embarrassment to an international figure of public ridicule.
(We know Sidney is on a tear about Presidents with dictatorial ambitions. Maybe we should look out for a copy of the famous bumper sticker to get him as a gift that said "Nixon's the One!")
More recently, Bush II had his politically-appointed lawyers write justifications for a range of actions related to Iraq, the war on terror, torture, enhanced interrogation, etc. His legal minions claimed that the "commander-in-chief" clause in the constitution gave the executive branch authority when the nation was at war to bypass existing international treaties (considered binding in the constitution) as well as other domestic statutes. Many of those justifications have been challenged in court and in the vast majority of decisions, courts up to and including the Supreme Court (with many Republican-appointed judges concurring) have turned aside the claims of the Bush lawyers. Since taking office, the Obama Administration has rejected both the Bush practices and the rationales of extra-constitutional prerogatives.
But enough of Professor Rust on constitutional law, let's just wait until Sidney completes his travel and makes his case.
I know many of us will await with interest to see if Sidney has any new bombshells to present with credible and compelling evidence or even a "smoking gun" that supports his claim.
I remain dubious, given my prior observation that if there was anything to such claims, the AG Eric Holder would already be inundated with cases brought by aggrieved victims of the dastardly deeds of Obama's constitution busters. Also, I repeat, as far as I know no such cases are awaiting adjudication anywhere in the US. Finally, so far Dicky Cheney has not tried to gain access to the White House to perform a citizen's arrest!
However, should Sidney just regurgitate the list from his earlier post, that he may have innocently copied from Fox or one the right-wing blogs, with bullet points on all the heinous things Obama has done that are supposedly not enumerated in the constitution, I will again refer you to my earlier response.
There, I briefly explained the established concept of "implied powers" which dates back to the earliest days of the Republic and validates Obama's actions (virtually all of which mirror similar acts of past presidents that were at the time accepted as fully consistent with the constitution)
Given the age, educational and wordly profiles AP kin folk, I would hope we are beyond the silliness of birthers, death panels, etc. And these pages don't begin to attract the tin foil cap crowd and we don't keep reading the same old same old.
Jackson, should you need further clarification on any constitutional or legislative niceties, don't hesitate to forward your inquiry.
