Is George W Bush a complete moron ?

[CraigD]

Any presidential aid/adviser/department head, must have the freedom to express an opinion w/o someday being prosecuted for that opinion. Any president must protect that right even to the perceived ridicule of the public. Separations of powers, is vital and well laid out in the Constitution.

I think that this interpretation, although it has been argued many times by both Executive and Legislative branch officials, is badly, and dangerously, incorrect. No public office, private place of employment, church, or other institution gives any person license to engage in illegal activity. Conversations between executives and their advisors, when used to plan illegal actions, are themselves criminal acts, and can enjoy no legal protection under the principles of separation of powers, Executive privilege, or other interpretations of the Constitution or legal precedent.

 

I think US District Court judge Thomas Hogan put it well in the conclusion of his 7/10/2006 rejection of the House of Representatives’s claim that the FBI raid on William Jefferson’s Congressional offices waw illegal (bolding mine):

Indeed, it is the Judicial Branch that ascertains the requirements of the law in accordance with Article III of the Constitution. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 704-05 (1974) (citing The Federalist No. 47, at 313 (S. Mittell ed., 1938)).

The power to determine the scope of one’s own privilege is not available to any other person, including members of the co-equal branches of government: federal judges, see In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation, 783 F.2d 1488, 1518-20 (11th Cir. 1986), or the President of the United States, see Nixon, 418 U.S. at 703-05. When President Nixon asserted that “the separation of powers doctrine precludes judicial review of a President’s claim of privilege,” the Supreme Court held that it is “the province and duty of this Court ‘to say what the law is’ with respect to the claim of privilege presented in this case.”

…

"The existing broad protections of the Speech or Debate Clause – absolute immunity from prosecution or suit for legislative acts and freedom from being 'questioned' about those acts (including privilege from the testimonial act of producing documents in response to a subpoena) – satisfy the fundamental purpose of the Clause to protect the independence of the legislature. The Court declines to extend those protections further, holding that the Speech or Debate Clause does not shield Members of Congress from the execution of valid search warrants. Congressman Jefferson's interpretation of the Speech or Debate privilege would have the effect of converting every congressional office into a taxpayer-subsidized sanctuary for crime. Such a result is not supported by the Constitution or judicial precedent and will not be adopted here. See Williamson v. United States, 28 S. Ct. at 167 ('[T]he laws of this country allow no place or employment as a sanctuary for crime.')

Although Hogan’s decision was overturned by a higher court, it was overturned only in part, not in principle, holding that the US DOJ could not examine document seized from Jefferson by the FBI until Jefferson had submitted to the court a list of specific documents to be excluded, and reasons justifying their exclusion as not pertaining to the case for which he was being investigated. Other documents from his office were ultimately used in his 6/4/2007 indictment.

 

There is, however, a practical reason that I believe subpoenas and/or warrants served on the Executive branch can be ignored by it: unlike congressional offices, which are fairly physically accessible and guarded only by lightly armed US Capitol Police, the Executive Mansion is physically very secure, and guarded by well armed US Secret Service agents. IMHO, no court, including one convened by Congress, could successfully execute a search on the White House without the consent of the President and the Secret Service. Their officers simply couldn’t, physically, get inside.

 

White house staff who live in homes not physically connected to the White House, on the other hand, can be arrested and compelled to appear. I don’t believe such a thing will happen to Sara Taylor, however, especially as she appears willing to disobey President G. W. Bush’s request that she refuse to testify before Congress if ordered to do so by “the courts” (source: 7/11/2007 New York Times: Former Bush Aide Will Answer Some Questions).

[Qfwfq]

There is, however, a practical reason that I believe subpoenas and/or warrants served on the Executive branch can be ignored by it: unlike congressional offices, which are fairly physically accessible and guarded only by lightly armed US Capitol Police, the Executive Mansion is physically very secure, and guarded by well armed US Secret Service agents. IMHO, no court, including one convened by Congress, could successfully execute a search on the White House without the consent of the President and the Secret Service. Their officers simply couldn’t, physically, get inside.

:xx:

 

Now that surely shows an extreme separation of powers! Talk about checks and balances! :shrug:

[jackson33]

Qfwfq;

 

"Past few years"; The *separation of powers*, are kept in check by the *Checks and Balance* provided in the first three articles of the Constitution.

Simply put, this means each branch has the means to influence the others in some manner. The objective, at the formation of the US and is today, was/is to prevent the Majority from ruling with an iron fist.

 

My contention on accountability, has nothing to do with the President himself.

He is accountable, first to the people and then to Congress. At anytime the Congress can call for Impeachment hearings and claim any of the thousands of decisions made, a high crime or act of treason. Any President simply doing his duty, requires information/opinions from every possible perspective in the National Interest. The advisor's who he has chosen for such filtered information must be permitted to give honest interpretation of what information has been presented to them, even if that information could at some later date be construed illegal, immoral or in fact treasonous.

 

The Congressional game of backing people into statements, which could be said *a lie to Congress* at a later date is well known and has been practiced by them since the First Continental Congress...Although there are many political examples of this, I'll use the Baseball "drug enhancement" feasible of a few years back. Each Ball player participating in that hearing, is subject to this rule and several had to be lying, as others said opposite things.

 

I really am not up to date on all the Constitutional Systems of government, or to what degree of checks and balances on their branches, may be. I do know, many have failed to work. Venezuela of course the latest, but many majorities in the world nations are the weakest of that society or dependent on government. This symptom is making headway into the US today as we now have over have the people dependent to some degree and receiving checks from government each month. This was never the intent of those that created our Constitution.

 

Bush may be a one man band, but plays to an audience of 300 million and is subject to their approval, by what historians view in the years to come. King, of course not nor will I address such a notion. However voice of our people, he has to be and with the authority of the people he represents...which by the way is everyone.....

[Buffy]

Any presidential aid/adviser/department head, must have the freedom to express an opinion w/o someday being prosecuted for that opinion.

Think your mis-understanding the purpose of an adviser. Its to give an opinion from that persons perspective period, regardless of legality. The legality is determined by a legal staff which only determines the legality of the decision. If Gonzalez/Miers/Taylor in giving an opinion, stating a reason for some statement, whether used in the final decision or not, then that opinion could be used against a person....

The Congressional game of backing people into statements, which could be said *a lie to Congress* at a later date is well known and has been practiced by them since the First Continental Congress...Although there are many political examples of this...

In all three of these statements, you make a very clear assertion that people can be prosecuted for stating an "opinion." Can you point to a case where a person has been so prosecuted?

 

As far as I am aware, the only way that one could get prosecuted for expressing an opinion would be if they *later* lied under oath about expressing that opinion, but even then, a court would have trouble finding fault with anything that was protected speech--protected for every citizen, not just employees of the Executive. Again, there does not seem to be any examples of situations where people were prosecuted about "lying about having an opinion." Can you come up with one?

 

The specific issues being pursued by congress are not tied to "lying" but lying about *actions* that are legally proscribed. John Poindexter and Ollie North were convicted of *carrying out* actions to transfer funds and war materiel from the Iranians to the Nicaraguan Contras, not just "having an opinion" that they should be allowed to.

 

Is there a distinction in your mind between having an opinion and lying, or more importantly between lying and actually carrying out legally proscribed actions? Or are they the same thing as long as its people employed by the Executive Branch?

 

The constitutional issue is indeed directly related to the separation of powers. If the Attorney General says "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," and it turns out that "Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have," he might be able to claim he never saw it, or that it was his "opinion" that the data was "inadequately verified." This would be very tough to prosecute--and most important, probably won't be--but the important point is that it shows an *intent to deceive*, and that starts to get at the crux of the issue at hand about having people testify under oath.

 

Apparently you have not watched many Congressional Oversight hearings. In short they are political speeches by the questioning member of Congress, to a member of, in most cases, the loyal opposition which rarely have an intended question. This done in public, on the record and subject to the media. In private meeting although not required by the President to participate, the oversight purpose is served.

This is only true if the participants do not lie. This is what got Libby into trouble. While this has been dismissed as "he's a busy guy, and who can remember every detail," even the President has agreed that the case presented against Libby was proven to be Obstruction of Justice.

 

And therein lies the issue: Libby obstructed justice, but we will never now know what offenses he might have been hiding. As has been pointed out recently, Nixon probably would never have been run out of office if he had not been so stupid as to have recorded his offenses.

 

*Conservative* legal experts are concerned now because this case has eroded the power of prosecutors to compel truthful testimony with the threat of perjury.

 

To dismiss this issue is to attack the very foundation of our legal system.

 

The Congressional game of backing people into statements, which could be said *a lie to Congress* at a later date is well known and has been practiced by them since the First Continental Congress...Although there are many political examples of this...

I for one would love to hear them.

 

When the President does it its not illegal, :shrug:

Buffy

[Qfwfq]

Jackson I was not asking for an explanation of your constitution, which I've only read a couple of times out of curiosity but do know the generals of, I was making a point about the manner in which many supporters of Bush have invoked separation of powers. For instance, the row there was about Condi being obliged to appear before Congress.

 

BTW I did not say Bush is a one-man-band I said your executive is, according to your constitution which says it's embodied in the person of the president, who has full control over it and can be knocked down by legislative only in the serious cases that allow impeachment. Under your constitution even a lame duck has the right to complete the mandate. Over here, for instance, gov't ministers are much less completely dependent on the prime minister and, if a motion of distrust is approved by parliament, the executive gets renewed. It can always be summoned by parliament. The parliament most closely represents the people and the gov't is fully answerable to it, and that's the way I like it.

 

The advisor's who he has chosen for such filtered information must be permitted to give honest interpretation of what information has been presented to them, even if that information could at some later date be construed illegal, immoral or in fact treasonous.

It's a matter of distinguishing whether the illegal action is committed by the advisor or by those he is reporting about. If you see some thugs bashing someone's brains out and you call the police, have you done something wrong?

[InfiniteNow]

It's a matter of distinguishing whether the illegal action is committed by the advisor or by those he is reporting about. If you see some thugs bashing someone's brains out and you call the police, have you done something wrong?

 

It would seem we are, if said thugs are top level government officials. :umno:

[jackson33]

Qfwfq; By skipping to the last point, it may seem I am agreeing that Mr. Bush or that matter every President in some manner has acted with dishonesty. Frequently I mention the publics *need to know*, which I feel all Americans do not want to know some things and those that do have political agenda in mind.

 

The separation, is vital for the pure separations of the branches to operate and keeping the functions of each to that limit is almost a voluntary practice by each branch. Our Constitution is the foundation for US Law, which no State can over ride with there own. Of the thousands of proposed amendments offered, many passed, only 20 or so have become law which in some manner altered that Constitution and this over 230 year history of our system. This in effect indicated the voluntary nature of those that have participated through that period.

 

Now, every President, from G. Washington to GW Bush, has no doubt been involved in illegal/immoral/unjust activity as they perceive a future outcome.

The interference of any foreign government for instance, is an illegal act under our system w/o following a set policy. I am not going to or getting into Jefferson's Slave child or many of them that have had personal problems, but the direct interference with the leaders and governments of other Nations, such as Iran Contra, sale of sensitive material, buying off a Nation for compliance of some idea or the actual payments to some group or Nation to interfere with an existing government. These things are quite common, have been practiced and will continue to be part of US policy. With this in mind many folks that ANY President choses to advise on decisions are going to advise illegal actions, almost a must to even view all sides of an issue. All member of Congress, the Chief and Justices of the SC and the majority of the US public if not the worlds public understand this, even if only to a probability factor.

 

Buffy; Rather than nitpicking word meanings, in the process of making suggestions for or against an issue, at the pace any issue evolves and the need to adjust almost continuous I doubt you or any human can keep straight just what is said when said and in referance to which issue. The folks that have chosen to serve you in government, work untold hours, give up much of the social life, along with many other things, for generally low compensation.

 

As for Libby or for that matter Clinton's problems or Ron Reagan Iran-Contra inconsistent testimony, the fact is opinion of quilt is getting very close to 100% political affiliation. Even the Iraq War, seems to be based on party affiliation and if this trend continues your looking at the end of our system of government. According to the accusations and Special Councils findings Reagan and Clinton should have died in prison, paying untold fines on a comparison basis to Libby's case. Bush, has diplomatically approach the problem, no doubt in the end pardon Libby and life will go on. Personally, I hope never to see a President/Vice President going to jail for any reason. The balanced system of our government will remove truly guilty persons and if not as in a couple cases, their influence diminished. My objective point here is the already limited number of qualified participants that desire to be President. Frankly I could pick 5 from each party with no desire and all as or more qualified than today's candidates.

 

As for telling a lie; I seriously doubt any member of GW Bush administration agrees with him on every issue, however they are obligated to pursue his agenda when making public appearances. Often, you will hear "The President feels" or in some manner indicate it may not be their's, but in many cases a lie is told. I might suggest Tony Snow, who has made a career in giving his opinions, which I know are not GWB's, but he will answer the press question, to the administrations viewpoint.

[Buffy]

Sounds like a "no." Fair enough....

 

When I use a word, :umno:

Buffy

[Qfwfq]

Jackson, most of that seems to have little to do with my point, except for the sentence:

The separation, is vital for the pure separations of the branches to operate and keeping the functions of each to that limit is almost a voluntary practice by each branch.

which itslef is obscure in parts and doesn't seem relevant either.

 

Now, every President, from G. Washington to GW Bush, has no doubt been involved in illegal/immoral/unjust activity as they perceive a future outcome.

The interference of any foreign government for instance, is an illegal act under our system w/o following a set policy. I am not going to or getting into Jefferson's Slave child or many of them that have had personal problems, but the direct interference with the leaders and governments of other Nations, such as Iran Contra, sale of sensitive material, buying off a Nation for compliance of some idea or the actual payments to some group or Nation to interfere with an existing government. These things are quite common, have been practiced and will continue to be part of US policy. With this in mind many folks that ANY President choses to advise on decisions are going to advise illegal actions, almost a must to even view all sides of an issue.

Well if that's the way you like it, it is very telling and you shouldn't complain about some of the fiercest criticism which your country meets abroad. In any case I have doubts about how completely:

All member of Congress, the Chief and Justices of the SC and the majority of the US public if not the worlds public understand this, even if only to a probability factor.

and how much everybody accepts it, as well as "understanding" it. I assure you I see plenty of people in the world not accepting it in the least.

 

It would seem we are, if said thugs are top level government officials. :rolleyes:

While you don't seem to have matched my words with what they referred to, you do seem to have guessed the above stuff, anticipating it by about three minutes. :D

[jackson33]

Q; Its called maintaining the *status quo* which most of the general public has no idea what all is involved, including me...

 

One reason, I favor the Bush II administration is that SQ system is being replaced by definitive actions, or at least to some degree. We could have very easily just kept on protecting Iraq's no fly space, taking pot shots at missile sites and losing an occasional plane. North Korea, could have been given aid AGAIN for complying with UN mandates and we could let Israel take care of Iran, just a very few examples.

 

The US gives billions in aid to a good many Nations, has Military Installations

(300+) around the world. Additionally, we encourage foreign business activity in the US and do not discourage our business activity any place. All these things are to encourage Democratic/Free Society, which generally works.

 

What I like, is not the point; There are many problems in this world, getting more complicated by the day, which will effect most every society and already obvious to my average brain. To operate a single government in a World Society, is no different than an elected official of any government

(City-County-State or what have you), at best your tenure will please just so many of the total. While I don't think the World's public acceptance of Bush, the administration or his policies are what the general media or this forum indicate, he cannot satisfy every one.

[Qfwfq]

I did not imply he should satisfy everyone, even considering only US citizens let alone the whole world, but if what you meant now is that you think one person, elected by US citizens, should "operate a single government in a World Society" you're gonna find much of the world society hooting you down ferociously.

 

To me, you are simply failing to address what had been my remark and you're not even making all that much sense, which is why other times I've withheld remarks on your posts. I s'pose I should have this time too, there's just no point in it. I talk about preposterous invocations of separation of powers that go somewhat against checks and balances; you lecture me about why these are there, as if I had said there should be none, and then procede to further state how Bush should be hardly checked anyway, and not just in your own territory. :rolleyes:

[jackson33]

I addressed in my total post "I assure you I see plenty of people not accepting" which could include US public. On paragraph 2, suppose I have not understood your point. Have a nice day....

[Qfwfq]

I certainly meant including US public, but it seems you have not understood paragraph 1 so well either.

Have a nice day too.

[InfiniteNow]

Another week has passed. Gosh. How will I EVER find another issue which speaks poorly of our nations <cough cough ahem> leader?

 

 

Bush Is Prepared to Veto Bill to Expand Child Insurance - New York Times

The White House said on Saturday that President Bush would veto a bipartisan plan to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program, drafted over the last six months by senior members of the Senate Finance Committee.

 

The vow puts Mr. Bush at odds with the Democratic majority in Congress, with a substantial number of Republican lawmakers and with many governors of both parties, who want to expand the popular program to cover some of the nation’s eight million uninsured children.

 

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said: “The president’s senior advisers will certainly recommend a veto of this proposal. And there is no question that the president would veto it.”

 

The program, which insured 7.4 million people at some time in the last year, is set to expire Sept. 30.

 

 

Queue now the incoherent off-point distractors. :eek: :)

[paigetheoracle]

Well yes, obviously but is he working for God? Perhaps. Think about it. The problem is simple arithmetic - too many people plus too few resources equals end of life on Earth. George Bush plus destructive policy at home and abroad, kills off most of the population, solving this troublesome equation (God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform). Life's a joke and death is the punchline.

[freeztar]

Rather than nitpicking word meanings, in the process of making suggestions for or against an issue, at the pace any issue evolves and the need to adjust almost continuous I doubt you or any human can keep straight just what is said when said and in referance to which issue. The folks that have chosen to serve you in government, work untold hours, give up much of the social life, along with many other things, for generally low compensation.

 

:lol:

 

What a cop out!

 

They are not slaves. They took their position willingly, and most often ambitiously.

 

If I can not keep my facts straight, and if I'm on trial, then I will be prosecuted. Why should our leaders be above the law?

 

Fully commuted,

Freezy

[paigetheoracle]

:)

 

What a cop out!

 

They are not slaves. They took their position willingly, and most often ambitiously.

 

If I can not keep my facts straight, and if I'm on trial, then I will be prosecuted. Why should our leaders be above the law?

 

Fully commuted,

Freezy

 

I think our leaders should be above the law.....suspended on a rope!:lol:

 

Hypocrisy rules okay! :doh:

 

By the way I don't believe George bush is a complete moron - he's definitely got a piece missing! ("Now where did I put that bit of the jigsaw?" God)