Looks like the Dems are still whining.
They're out of luck. U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright and Goldwater v. Carter make it pretty clear in my opinion.
Unless it's Judge Kessler hearing the case...
1 posted on
08/06/2002 10:51:22 AM PDT by
hchutch
To: JohnHuang2; Poohbah; Miss Marple; PhiKapMom; MeeknMing
FYI.
2 posted on
08/06/2002 10:52:10 AM PDT by
hchutch
To: hchutch
"Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio" Didn't he used to be a Republican?...in name only maybe?...
I guess I haven't been paying attention. Somebody help me out here.
--Boris
3 posted on
08/06/2002 10:53:36 AM PDT by
boris
To: hchutch; AuntB; nunya bidness; GrandmaC; Washington_minuteman; buffyt; Grampa Dave; blackie; ...
To: hchutch
The right to withdraw from the treaty is written in the treaty itself. Congress has given approval for the President to activate the withdrawal clause by approving the treaty in the first place. Pre-approved, done deal, no grounds.
To: hchutch
First, the House has no role with respect to treaties. Second, do the DemocRATS really want to go down this road? If Senate DemocRATS could argue that the President has no authority to terminate the treaty himself, Republicans could counter by saying that the ABM treaty was rendered obsolete by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Clinton declared the Russian Federation to be the successor state to the Soviet Union without any advice or consent of the Senate. If the Supreme Court were to rule Bush's termination of the treaty invalid, it would also have to rule that Clinton's declaration of Russia as the successor state is invalid. Either way the treaty dies.
To: hchutch; backhoe
Hmm? I went to search Google for "Whining Democrats" and guess what?
Nuttin' ! Here's the only picture they list for that!:
Incredible!Whining Democrats
http://images.google.com/images?q=Whining+Democrats&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en
But using this Hotbot Search for "Whining Democrats", I found links to these:
Anybody really want to
re-elect Gore in 2004?
(Photo by Slobadan Dimitrov)
And this (arse-holes)........
Today's Quote
"...there is no compelling evidence that Baghdad was involved in the September 11th attacks, and... Saddam's human rights record, while appalling, is not demonstrably worse than a dozen other tyrants... Unless Bush can mount a more persuasive case that Saddam is uniquely dangerous, the Iraqi's overthrow by force would send a powerful message that might is right and that the United States alone determines the rules of the game."
Dupont is with the Australian National University, writing in the International Herald Tribune
Alan Dupont, 06-Aug-02
Search #3 even found THIS link to a FreeRepublic.com article !:
3. |
Democrats to dismiss 'extreme' nominees [Free Republic] |
|
FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum" [ Last | Latest Posts | Latest Articles | Self Search | Add Bookmark | Post | Abuse | Help! ] Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are th 5/4/2002 http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3af638456ff2.htm The Hotbot Search had MORE, too ! |
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson