Asserting executive privilege shows desperation in the Obama White House

Bookwormroom.com ^ | 6-20-2012 | Bookworm

[thouworm]

Thanks for ping.

Slightly OT: Are you listening to Levin? He just said after the full House passes the contempt vote, Issa should file a civil lawsuit against Holder in Federal court in DC and seek expedited action.

[TXnMA]

Six letters:

"C Y A !!"

and...

"C M A !!"

[atc23]

I don’t know about that. The media need a good summer show, a real stemwinder of a Constitutional Crisis so that people tune in, watch Sam Ervin all day and buy the tampons, anti depressant pils that may or may not make you want to commit suicide or give you an erection that lasts for 12 hours.

The impeachment of Barak Obama just may be the feel good hit of the summer! A blockbuster.

And just think, the EP redefinition which screws Obama was written up by. . . Wait for it. . .

Miss Hillary Rodham herself during the Richard Nixon inquisition in 1973-74.

Absolutely delicious.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Nothing to disagree with you on the substance, but I object to

I’ll bet they won’t be reporting the ranking of the nation’s press anytime soon. It’s dead last.

the usage of “the press” in that context. Freedom of the press is a right of the people, not a privilege of a nobility or a priesthood.

Accordingly it is presumptuous of journalists to call themselves “the press.” Freedom of the press is a right which pertains to you whether you own a press yet or not.

In fact, since you have a computer with internet access (and probably also a printer, for that matter) you do have “a press” in the sense that you have spent money for technological means to transmit your opinions to a wide audience. The Constitution explicitly promotes technological progress

Article 1 Section 8.

The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .

so the contingency of technological progress in transmitting opinions to a wide audience cannot be considered foreign to the Constitution, requiring or allowing government regulation. If in fact it is determined that government regulation of modern opinion-transmission technology is needed, the Constitution has provision to accommodate such a contingency:

Article V - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The conclusion is that wire service journalism, which is homogenizing influence on journalism, should not be allowed to arrogate to itself the term “the press” as if it were a title of nobility or a priesthood.

[TigersEye]

Maybe. I’ve been waiting for the MSM’s inherent shark nature to kick in but they have passed up dozens of juicy (and meaty) stories about The Won to date.

[hoosiermama]

Good idea.

Heard that since the crime happened in AZ the family could charge WithHolder and 0 in a civil suit for wrongful death.

[thouworm]

Just announced today:

ICE agent’s [Jaime Zapata] family files wrongful death claim against Justice Dept.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2897565/posts

[DoughtyOne]

When I first started to read our post, I was afraid it was going to weave into a defense of the press.

In reality, you expanded the group that should be considered to be a part of the press. So yes it was a defense of the press, but in truth you and I are included. Anyone with a voice and a way to disburse it, even if only to provide their own editorial opinion, is a part of the press.

I appreciate you reinforcing this tenet.