Posted on 07/05/2009 7:23:22 PM PDT by LisaAnne
You said — Ask GWB, who was quite fond of such things.
—
That’s one unfortunate thing about Republicans doing things, using a methodology that Democrats can copy later on. The fact is..., they will copy the methodology later on... :-)
And so, while *some* may have approved of Bush doing certain things like that (and I know that not all in the GOP or conservatives did approve) — they have to keep in mind that the same thing can be done by Democrats.
That’s why not only must one consider the idea of what one is trying to do — but *also* the methodology that one is using to carry it out.
You asked — I’m wondering if Robert Byrd would oppose this. Whatever else he is, he has always been a champion of the role of the Senate.
—
The Senate’s role is not taken away. They still have the same role. In fact, they can knock it down, if they want to. And perhaps, if they don’t like the way this is being done, they may very well do that.
So, there is nothing here that has taken the role of the Senate in approving these treaties, away from them.
You said — LET THE EFFING THING EXPIRE!
—
If it’s not ratified by the Senate it will expire, no matter what the President does. So, there’s nothing here that requires the Senate to ratify it, and there’s nothing that makes it a treaty that the U.S. has to abide by, without the Senate ratification...
Thanks for the clarification.
I think Clinton made these “gentlemens’ agreements” once or twice, and someone mentioned that W has too.
The loss of our constitution did not start in November.
You said — This would constitute high crimes and treason, which he could be impeached for.
—
A President would never be Impeached for doing something like this. This is within his authority and in the power of the Office of the President of the United States to do. It’s not impeachable.
He still has to submit it to the Senate for ratification in any case. And..., let’s say that he doesn’t. All that happens is that no other President has to follow his actions — i.e., there is no treaty.
I’m sure the Russians know that, too... LOL...
“This sort of thing is entirely possible within any administration.”
So the idea of a private little treaty to reduce our national security is kinda like....
— firing a sitting CEO and select dirctors
— channeling money to his personal outreach(ACORN)
— extorting cooperation from top finanacial instituions
— denying access to all white house and personal records
— sponsoring the “disaster du jour” to get money/taxes
— NEVER proving he is elligible for office
OK - I get ya Star
The ends justifies the means right?
I just kinda wonder what the senate is gonna think
when BO cuts off their nuts. Same thing. Just a
different visual.
The *real issue* and question here — is — whether we should continue Reagan’s START treaty or not...
I guess if the U.S. did not want to continue Reagan’s START treaty, then we could go into a nuclear arms race once again... that’s always another option...
Well, no matter how much one doesn’t like Obama in being a Marxist, one cannot deny that engaging in this and implementing the details of such an agreement “cannot be done” by any President. It can...
The thing that cannot be done, is having it made into a treaty, without Senate ratification. So, if someone is saying that this is a treaty without ratification, they’re wrong. Any other President and administration can ignore it. But, they could not ignore a treaty that was ratified by the Senate.
Those are the pesky little details that remain, regardless of whether you have a Marxist or a conservative in office...
ping.
Jobs!
Justifies a breeder reactor program, too!
LOL... ahhh... a nuclear arms race for jobs... Somehow that sounds way too Marxist for me... :-)
I prefer Reagan’s take on the whole situation..
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2286263/posts
yitbos
Having read your comments for some time,
I’ve not decided if you are just naive and providing your own intellectual mental cover
Or
Purposely acting the shill for Obama.
Is there any violation of the constitution that you will not defend?
Jedi Knights? I’m thinking Dennis Kuscinich, Al Franken, and Barney Frank. Jeeze....we are so screwed!
ROTFLMAO!
‘Screwed’?
Oh yeah, we are...big time.
Take a gander at this one.
:(
You said — Is there any violation of the constitution that you will not defend?
—
I don’t call passing state laws requiring a candidate to show specific documentation for running for office to be violating the Constitution. I call that upholding the Constitution, in a way that will keep someone from getting into office....
And that’s exactly what I’ve been saying is the solution that *will work* for Obama, for the last many months. Three states that I know of did proceed with that very thing (one of them being the state that I’m in, Oklahoma).
And, I don’t call someone exercising the powers of office that they are in, by implementing details of an agreement that the Senate has to first ratify, in order to become a treaty, as violating the Constitution.
It’s the same thing that Bush did, in many instances, in exercising the powers of his office, too, in doing things that he thought he should do. A President *can* do that and do it legitimately (whether a Democrat or a Republican). The *difference* is that one doesn’t like the ideas that a Democrat enacts, while one does (for the most part) like the ideas that the Republican enacts.
You seem to have a weird way of understanding things...
already posted but needs to be seen by as many as possible.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2286046/posts
Will check it out.
Thx.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.