Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

... And Another Thing, George Will Is Wrong
National Review Online ^ | 2/16/06 | Mark R. Levin

Posted on 02/16/2006 11:14:47 AM PST by wcdukenfield

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
To: USS Alaska
I don't always agree with Will...but I think he is great.

I think George Will has been great, and still has the capacity, but it seems to me that at this late date he just mails it in at times.

61 posted on 02/16/2006 2:37:47 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
"...George Will is a RINO?"

He may have been a draft dodger, but he ain't no RINO!

62 posted on 02/16/2006 2:44:22 PM PST by Radix (I really love the liberals, they put the FUN in funerals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Congress can -- at least indirectly -- micromanage any executive power to whatever extent they deem necessary.

Well, they can try. I recall a series of laws collectively called "the Boland Amendment" back in the seventies. Dead letters today, and in fact never enforceable. We also have had Supreme Court decisions ignored and flouted by the Executive in the past, with the refrain, "the court has spoken, now let them enforce it."

63 posted on 02/16/2006 2:45:45 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Operative phrase is "Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act". No one in the Bush administration denies that FISA was bypassed in the current NSA program.

I'm having some difficulty finding it, but as I recall the particulars, the act notes where it doesn't apply, and this is a reference to it.

64 posted on 02/16/2006 2:49:13 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: lepton
You might want to look here. Generally, warrants aren't required in cases where there's no substantial likelihood of a "U.S. person" (citizen or permanent alien resident) being surveilled. But I think it's been acknowledged with this latest NSA program that U.S. citizens have come under surveillance.
65 posted on 02/16/2006 2:54:15 PM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Whose are larger? ;)


66 posted on 02/16/2006 2:56:00 PM PST by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska
I think he is a pompus rino [sic]

Wrong. He is a brilliant man. You should not confuse intelligence with pompousness. Beyond that, your RINO comment is laughable.

67 posted on 02/16/2006 3:01:23 PM PST by NautiNurse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield

The National Review proves yet again it is no longer conservative and just a mouthpiece for the party of bigger government


68 posted on 02/16/2006 3:08:37 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Albertas Child claimed:

The power of Congress to impeach a sitting President is basically unlimited.
If the members of the House of Representatives decided tomorrow to impeach George W. Bush because they don't like Texans, and two-thirds of the members of the Senate agreed, then George W. Bush would be out of a job with absolutely no recourse other than to run again in 2008.

-- such a basis for an impeachment would never pass constitutional muster. He must be found guilty of "high crimes or Misdemeanors".

dirtboy:
I disagree. Andrew Johnson came within one vote of removal from office over what were basically political differences.
There is no appeal to SCOTUS if a president is impeached and removed.

If the President appealed a specious impeachment to the people & to the USSC on Constitutional grounds , -- and refused to leave the white house until heard, -- which dept/agency could Congress use to evict him?

69 posted on 02/16/2006 3:10:59 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Generally, warrants aren't required in cases where there's no substantial likelihood of a "U.S. person" (citizen or permanent alien resident) being surveilled. But I think it's been acknowledged with this latest NSA program that U.S. citizens have come under surveillance.

And THERE is quite a loop. The surveillance is of foreign agents, with specific recognition in the cited law as not needing warrants. Excluding it because they happen to call people in the U.S. from time to time is silly.

Anyways, the President is authorized and empowered by the Constitution to be the CINC. Inerent in executing this duty is collecting military information. Again, the gray area is not in collecting the information for military and diplomatic intelligence purposes. It is not a civil or criminal prosecution, nor abusing collection resources for politics.

70 posted on 02/16/2006 3:18:28 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
which dept/agency could Congress use to evict him?

The new President.

71 posted on 02/16/2006 3:19:36 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: lepton
It may very well be (and I think is indeed likely) that the collection of information is not being abused, but the purpose of laws like FISA is to make sure it doesn't get abused. Maybe it's poorly crafted, but that's Congress's call.
72 posted on 02/16/2006 3:23:43 PM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: lepton
which dept/agency could Congress use to evict him?

lepton wrote:

The new President.

Debatable point..
Only if the new, appointed president was accepted by the executive branch dept heads as the valid Chief Executive.
-- They too are obligated to defend the Constitution as written.

It is not written to allow impeachments for specious political matters.

73 posted on 02/16/2006 3:36:28 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Tulane
It's what we have a Supreme Court for--to decide the issue.

Ummmm... not really. First, the exercise of interest by one branch against another is exactly what was envisioned by the framers as a way of limiting their powers. How this is resolved is intended to be primarily under the clear wording of the Constitution, secondarily through the political process. The Federal courts role in that regard was originally regarded as quite small.

Second, under Article III, Congress has ultimate authority over the Federal Courts, both in the manner of their organization and in the matter of their jurisdiction "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Contrary to popular opinion, the three branches of government are not co-equal, they were not designed to be co-equal, and in particular the courts were NOT intended to be the final authority. That power is reserved to the authority that granted the Constitution of the United States: the People.

74 posted on 02/16/2006 3:43:39 PM PST by FredZarguna (The refs didn't run the ball 75 yards from scrimmage into Seattle's end zone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
The necessary and proper clause does not empower Congress to seize explicit constitutional authority from the president.

And what "explicit constitutional authority" are we discussing?

75 posted on 02/16/2006 3:52:43 PM PST by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wcdukenfield
The necessary and proper clause does not empower Congress to seize explicit constitutional authority from the president.

Thank you, Mark Levin, for your clear reasoning and understanding of Constitutional law. I hope you're the next SCOTUS nominee.

76 posted on 02/16/2006 4:02:54 PM PST by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
It is the history of our Republic, and the way the Constitution has operated from day one.

Exactly!

77 posted on 02/16/2006 4:05:04 PM PST by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
which dept/agency could Congress use to evict him?

Civil War, basically, because that is what such an action would invoke.

78 posted on 02/16/2006 4:55:50 PM PST by dirtboy (I'm fat, I sleep most of the winter and I saw my shadow yesterday. Does that make me a groundhog?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: lepton

A bit wrong here. A State of the Union address was never mandated by the Constitution. A written form (which could be made in the form of a speech) was mentioned in the Constitution...


dvwjr


79 posted on 02/16/2006 4:58:41 PM PST by dvwjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: dvwjr
A bit wrong here. A State of the Union address was never mandated by the Constitution. A written form (which could be made in the form of a speech) was mentioned in the Constitution...

Yup, you're right. I don't even have to look it up. :)

My point was though, that that reporting is one of the few mandated specific duties.

80 posted on 02/16/2006 5:15:37 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson