Are these guys serious?

[FatJackSprat]

Just in case you have some difficulty making the right decision, the Democrats will kindly help out by making it for you.

Gephardt : "When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day," Gephardt said.

Foxnews link to Gephardt

Kucinich : if elected president, he would issue an executive order legalizing the use of medical marijuana.

Link to the Marion Star (Ohio paper)

I read frequent accusations of the evil Republicans and their aspirations towards world domination or acts of favoritism for their preferred supporters. Every step that isn't oozing with glaring overtones of peace and love is shoved in our faces as evidence that the end of the free world will be at the hands of the selfish Republican party.

So, where are the repeated news items about Gephardt's or Kucinich's promises to make the laws as they think they should be?

Are these guys aware that the position is for President, not Dictator?

These statements define the Democratic party to me. If the laws which are determined by the majority or the highest court in the nation aren't to their liking, they see nothing wrong with conforming the system to reflect their ideas and values.

It is my opinion that Gephardt understands the reality of what he's saying and is really just trying win minority votes. Just another example of the Democratic party's use and perpetuation of racial tension to satisfy nothing more than political career goals.



(This happened awhile ago, sorry if it's a repost. I searched the forums for "Gephardt" and didn't find anything.)

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: FatJackSprat
So, where are the repeated news items about Gephardt's or Kucinich's promises to make the laws as they think they should be?

Are these guys aware that the position is for President, not Dictator?

If people didn't want Gphardt or Kucinich to make laws the way they think they should be, people wouldn't vote for them.

Since when is keeping campaign promises called a dictatorship?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Kucinich : if elected president, he would issue an executive order legalizing the use of medical marijuana.

Link to the Marion Star (Ohio paper)

I'm not sure who it's up to to reschedule drugs, but it's not the people or the states (FDA maybe?). He's not overstepping his boundaries here if he if he orders a federal agency to reschedule marijuana.

Gephardt is an idiot.

 

[FatJackSprat]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Since when is keeping campaign promises called a dictatorship?

Well, that depends on what the honored promise involves. Are you really confused or are you just saying that? Presidents can't justify actions just because they were campaign promises. If my campaign promise was to tax people I decided I didn't like at a higher rate, am I entitled to keep that promise just because I made it?

When a promise involves overriding a Supreme Court ruling to satisfy what you personally believe the outcome should have been, then that is an act similar to dictatorship. It is established that "the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court..." This does not mean that the Supreme Court can issue rulings that will only be valid if the President agrees and doesn't issue a contrary executive order. What would be the point of a high court with final say if every single issue was expected to be analyzed by the President for his approval? (by not issuing a contrary exec. order)

A dictator makes personal decisions as to what policies he believes should be the governing law of the land. A president issuing an executive that is in contrast to a Supreme Court order to reach the result he personally believes should have been found is acting like a dictator.

 

[FatJackSprat]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Kucinich : if elected president, he would issue an executive order legalizing the use of medical marijuana.

Link to the Marion Star (Ohio paper)

I'm not sure who it's up to to reschedule drugs, but it's not the people or the states (FDA maybe?). He's not overstepping his boundaries here if he if he orders a federal agency to reschedule marijuana.

Gephardt is an idiot.

I agree that of the two, Gephardt's statement is the worst.

I would guess (but don't know) that marijuana is illegal due to federal law passed by Congress, the President would have his chance to veto it before it was passed, but not after.

I just put up Kucinich's statement because I was surprised that two candidates were discussing how they'd abuse the power - again, I think both of them are obviously just trying to gain votes, but it is surprising that they don't fear negative reaction from the American people - or the press - for making such bold statements.

 

[TheBDB]

These statements define the Democratic party to me. If the laws which are determined by the majority or the highest court in the nation aren't to their liking, they see nothing wrong with conforming the system to reflect their ideas and values.

The Republicans do the exact same thing.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: FatJackSprat

I read frequent accusations of the evil Republicans and their aspirations towards world domination or acts of favoritism for their preferred supporters. Every step that isn't oozing with glaring overtones of peace and love is shoved in our faces as evidence that the end of the free world will be at the hands of the selfish Republican party.

So, where are the repeated news items about Gephardt's or Kucinich's promises to make the laws as they think they should be?

Are these guys aware that the position is for President, not Dictator?

These statements define the Democratic party to me. If the laws which are determined by the majority or the highest court in the nation aren't to their liking, they see nothing wrong with conforming the system to reflect their ideas and values.

It is my opinion that Gephardt understands the reality of what he's saying and is really just trying win minority votes. Just another example of the Democratic party's use and perpetuation of racial tension to satisfy nothing more than political career goals.

First off, neither of these two will win the nomination so it doesn't matter. And BDB is right, Republicans are guilty of the same exact tactics. Which party's leaders are trying to get a constitutional amendment to define marriage? They are doing it because they fear the Supreme Court will rule against their belief. Odd, you DEFINED this to be a characteristic of the Democrats. What party does the Attorney General belong to, the one who has trampled on civil rights like a fascist Dictator would, to the bane of BOTH Democrats and Republicans? Ask which party the Cuban-Americans in South Florida favor for its unnecessarily tough treatment of Castro which only hurts Cuba's citizens, and then ask yourself how important winning Florida is in general elections. Which party brought a ridiculous amount of Black people to their 2000 convention? But I thought only Dems try to win minority votes? What's the big problem with trying to win minority voters anyway? Both sides are guility of the tactics you described. It comes down to who you ideologically favor, and you will see the opposite party as evil incarnate.

Also, I find troubling the fact that you think that a law by the majority is automatically a just one and shouldn't be challenged. If that was believed, slavery would still be in effect in the South, if it was somehow abolished Dred Scott laws would still be in effect, women would not have many rights including suffrage, and the country would be 90% British. Protection of minority rights is a cornerstone of our great country.

 

[FatJackSprat]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
First off, neither of these two will win the nomination so it doesn't matter.

Not the point. My point is "So, where are the repeated news items about Gephardt's or Kucinich's promises to make the laws as they think they should be?"

And BDB is right, Republicans are guilty of the same exact tactics. Which party's leaders are trying to get a constitutional amendment to define marriage? They are doing it because they fear the Supreme Court will rule against their belief.

The process of Constitiutional amendment is not comparable to the unilateral action of an Executive Order. One process requires a vote to determine the wishes of the majority, the other does not.

In addition, by using the logic with which you dismissed the importance of the potential candidates' statements, wouldn't it follow that Constitutional amendment is so unlikely as to not matter?

Odd, you DEFINED this to be a characteristic of the Democrats. What party does the Attorney General belong to, the one who has trampled on civil rights like a fascist Dictator would, to the bane of BOTH Democrats and Republicans?

Exactly which civil rights have been taken away? Can you direct me to a newssource (not a private individual's website) that lists exactly which civil liberties have been taken away?

What's the big problem with trying to win minority voters anyway?

In my opinion, it is "Just another example of the Democratic party's use and perpetuation of racial tension to satisfy nothing more than political career goals." There's nothing wrong with trying to get minority votes, but it is my opinion that Democrats often attempt to portray themselves as the party of the underdog just to get those peoples' votes, not to address the problems they try to seem so concerned about. I agree that there is a small chance Gephardt will get elected. I also believe that if he would get elected, the likelihood that he would ever consider such an executive order is even smaller. All politicians make campaign promises that will never be fulfilled, but there is enough racial tension in this country and find it to be almost irresponsible to constantly stir up emotions and offer hope, just to get votes. BUT that is not the main point of my post and differences of opinion and examples of members from each party acting in such ways are possible.

Again, I am mainly interested as to why these statements have not received negative press and been pushed into our faces by Tom Brokaw until we know them by heart.

Both sides are guility of the tactics you described.

Bush stood up for his opinon and filed an amicus curiae in opposition to Affirmative Racism, not a move exactly calculated to win the minority vote.

It comes down to who you ideologically favor, and you will see the opposite party as evil incarnate.

Agreed.

Also, I find troubling the fact that you think that a law by the majority is automatically a just one and shouldn't be challenged.

Challenged and rewritten are two different things.

Majority rule is the easiest and the most logical. Where there are opposing views on a topic, why should the opinion of the fewer number of people be followed? What is a good reason against favoring legislation in favor of the majority's wishes in most instances? Do you mean that it is more logical to make (for instance) 70 out of every 100 people unhappy in order to please 30 of every 100? Why? Why should more people be unsatisfied with particular aspects their lives? Aside from murder and the like, the notion of moral right and basic good are going to be personal opinion. What justifies, then, allowing the notions of the minority to set aside the notions of the greater number of people?

If that was believed, slavery would still be in effect in the South

Perhaps, but we're talking about a country under the leadership of one president, not region of that country and history shows us that the majority were not in favor of slavery.

if it was somehow abolished Dred Scott laws would still be in effect, women would not have many rights including suffrage

No, Jim Crow laws were addressed by Congress through the legislative process, which operates by majority vote. That same Congress is placed by majority vote.

Protection of minority rights is a cornerstone of our great country.

As is the notion that the greater number of people will benefit where the wishes of the greater number of people are followed. There is a difference between protection of minority rights and satisfaction of minority wishes. We are not talking about rights here, in my opinion.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Yeesh that's alot of respond to. Most of it boils down to personal viewpoints, so its impossible to argue. I think what you consider minority wishes are minority rights, and there's no swaying opinion. While you say a Constitutional amendment and the laws of Congress are determined by majority, then would not be Executive Orders issued by a majority winning President also be determined by majority?

The reason why Gephardt's and Kuccinich's statements were not given much press is because they were not deemed newsworthy by the media. The media knows that stump speeches that candidates make aren't usually very newsworthy, unless its something "juicy" like attacking the President or attacking each other. Its not like they were making a State of the Union speech or anything...

As for Ashcroft's and the DOJ's assault on civil liberties, it of course has to do with the Patriot Act. It has been well documented everywhere. Here's one link, I'm sure there are many more. It is by the ACLU, so you may choose not to accept it, but I think the common consensus is that Ashcroft is one scary guy:

Mass. ACLU's Page on Ashcroft's Patriot Act


I don't know why I called the Jim Crow laws "Dred Scott" laws, my bad. While Jim Crow was eventually addressed by Congress, it still took a too long of a time for it to occur. Majority opinions aren't always right, mostly because they rarely protect the minority.

Sorry for the lack of formatting, but its hard when there's so much to respond to and I have very little desire to do so.

 

[FatJackSprat]

I can see that these statements have been ignored because they weren't by particularly noteworthy characters, but Gephardt is a Congressman. Any politician in that high of a position would be expected to have such bold statements scrutinized, but he has somehow escaped it.

I don't have any problem with the ACLU as a source, but in just glancing at this I can see that it (like everything) isn't written very objectively.

"It gives sweeping new powers of detention and surveillance to the Executive branch of government and law enforcement agencies, and depriving the Courts of meaningful judicial oversight to ensure that the law enforcement powers are not being abused."

In my opinion a good description would compare and contrast the old powers with the new "sweeping" ones.

"It permits investigations based on lawful First Amendment activity if that activity can be tied somehow to intelligence purposes."

There are many otherwise legal activities that become illegal when performed for illicit purposes. This just sounds like a reasonable suspicion standard, not too shocking. I would even suspect that it is a more strict standard since it was left out.

"Law enforcement officials no longer are tied by the rules of criminal law before conducting searches in criminal cases. People can be subjected to roving wiretaps or have their homes and offices secretly searched in criminal investigations without a demonstration of "probable cause" of a crime. Surveillance can follow a targeted individual to any computer or telephone he or she might use based on a single warrant that can be used anywhere in the United States."

This can't be all the facts. What defines criminal case? What defines a targeted individual?
Also, I would actually propose that the scope of warrants with regard to communication devices could be reasonably expanded where there is a valid warrant. The Constitution is fluid and adaptable, we have had incredible changes in methods of communication over the last 25 years alone. Why should those acting to protecting us be forced to operate in the 1700's while those with malicious intent are operating in the 21st?

Thanks for the link, I'm not going to read it now, but I will check it and other sources out some time. I had dismissed the topic as liberal scare tactics when it first came out, but now I am interested.




I don't believe that majority opinions are always right. I believe that there often isn't a "right" choice, which is why the will of the majority makes the most sense. When there are differeing opinions and the will of the majority is not followed, then we are placing the right to decide which course of action is best with someone. Who should that be? Following majority rule is an attempt to take the power of controlling the lives of everyone out of the hands of one or a few people.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: FatJackSprat


If the laws which are determined by the majority or the highest court in the nation aren't to their liking, they see nothing wrong with conforming the system to reflect their ideas and values.

You're talking about Bush right?

 

[FatJackSprat]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: FatJackSprat


If the laws which are determined by the majority or the highest court in the nation aren't to their liking, they see nothing wrong with conforming the system to reflect their ideas and values.

You're talking about Bush right?

Yeah, that's right. But I can't remember which laws Bush put into place in order to contravene a Supreme Court decision.

Can you?

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: FatJackSprat

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: FatJackSprat


If the laws which are determined by the majority or the highest court in the nation aren't to their liking, they see nothing wrong with conforming the system to reflect their ideas and values.

You're talking about Bush right?

Yeah, that's right. But I can't remember which laws Bush put into place in order to contravene a Supreme Court decision.

Can you?

Tom Ridge-homeland security Czar requiring a cabinet postion and elevated to a higher place in the chain of command comes to mind. A bit dictitorial if you ask me, and same with Cheney telling the investiigaters to ah heck off, he aint revealing who helped sculpt the energy policy.

I'm not saying that Gephart is right, I did not hear his speach, and I find suspect most of what I read anymore, but the current administration is not on high ground, sport.

 

[FatJackSprat]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Tom Ridge-homeland security Czar requiring a cabinet postion and elevated to a higher place in the chain of command comes to mind. A bit dictitorial if you ask me, and same with Cheney telling the investiigaters to ah heck off, he aint revealing who helped sculpt the energy policy.

I'm not saying that Gephart is right, I did not hear his speach, and I find suspect most of what I read anymore, but the current administration is not on high ground, sport.

Yeah, I'm not too high on Ridge myself. I still don't see his appointment as comparable to the passing of a law, that's done all the time. But I can't defend Ridge or his useless postion. That was an obvious appeasement for being passed up for VP. I don't really follow politics that much and I don't know about investigators being called off, but it wouldn't be the first time the White House ended something that was getting too close for comfort.

In any event, making a presidential appointment and an executive order are worlds apart, champ.