Different Times, Different Opinions
There was a time, according to this piece by Andrew McCarthy, when Democrats, too, believed in a muscular presidency.
But now, apparently, the same authority that Walter Dellinger tried to claim for Bill Clinton constitutes placing the President "above the law." The two main differences? (1) There's a Republican in The White House; and (2) It's wartime, so the powers are actually needed.
But now, apparently, the same authority that Walter Dellinger tried to claim for Bill Clinton constitutes placing the President "above the law." The two main differences? (1) There's a Republican in The White House; and (2) It's wartime, so the powers are actually needed.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:13 AM
7 Comments:
Uh, calling Mr. Twister ...
Even your precious Clinton Administration has argued against you.
Comments?
Well yes, they did, but only at the time. Now they don't really see a good legal foundation.
Classic Clintonism: having it both ways, if not at the exact same time, then in very close proximity.
"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'
"'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.
"Which of the two did what his father wanted?"
"The first," they answered.
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.--Matthew 21:28-31
On one hand we have the Clinton administration never actually setting up a systematic plan for violating the laws of the United States, even though they argued they thoeretically could. On the other hand we have President Bush publically claiming, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order," while he had secretly ordered the NSA to systematically wiretap thousands of US citizens and resident aliens without a court order.
I tell you the truth, Greg; like Christ's example above this isn't even a close call in my book.
Uh, calling Greg...
Just to refresh your memory:
"This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth."--Rep. Tom Delay R-TX
"As a lawyer and a legislator for most of my very long life, I have a particular reverence for our legal system. It protects the innocent, it punishes the guilty, it defends the powerless, it guards freedom, it summons the noblest instincts of the human spirit. The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door."--Rep. Henry Hyde R-IL
"What is on trial here is the truth and the rule of law."--Rep. James Sensenbrenner R-WI
"How can parents instill values and morality in their children? How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America--one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?"--Sen Chuck Hagel R-NE
"I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the President. He is not above the law. If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail."--Sen. Bill Frist R-TN
"When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people, their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office."--Rep. Lamar Smith R-TX
Even your precious Republican party used to believe in the rule of law and argued against you.
Comments?
Mr. Twister --
Is the Constitution the final and ultimate source of federal law in this country or not?
If it is (and it IS) then your arguments hold no water.
But you refuse to see this point and continue to use the same arguments and quotes over and over again.
And the point about the Clinton Administration is that they would have supported this program if Bill had done it and argued in favor of such powers for the President when their man was in charge. But if a Republican does it, then it is wrong merely because they don't like the guy and are ticked about who is in power. That's called hypocrisy, my friend, and no matter what scriptures you throw around I know that Christ would not support them in it.
The only thing clear to me is that Mr. Twister is on the side of the legalistic Pharisees and Tax Collectors. The side of what is obviously right in protecting our country in a time of war is what the Democratic party used to believe in...sadly over 50 years ago.
Mr. Twister,
You continue to assert that President Bush has viloated the laws of the land.
Would you care to cite a law that has been violated?
Can you cite a single case that has been decided by a single federal court that supports your claim?
On the other hand, if you were presented with cases in which the federal courts actually supported the actions President Bush has undertaken, would that change your mind?
Post a Comment
<< Home