We don't need another King George

[Looney]

Originally posted by: lozina
It is clear that the division in our society right now with the gravitation towards opposite poles of the political spectrum is what really helps this happen.

Alot of people will ready this article and say "Oh look more Bush bashing" and completely dismiss it.

Then maybe a Democrat comes in office and continues the trend yet makes it worse. We'll have a similar article pointing this out and then another crowd "Oh look more <democrat leader> bashing, and completely dismiss it.

and so it goes ... until our children are pledging to a large portrait of the American Emperor instead of the American flag

Ironic, since Bush was supposed to be the uniter, the one to bring the country together, in his first campaign

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: maddogchen
So whats the plan? what are you going to do about it?

Honestly, great question, even if you were being sarcastic. I think I can do two things about it, one immediately, and one in the future:

1. Spread the word (hence my post here and three other forums)

2. Vote

I think it's my duty to do both as an American.

Actually, this issue has been raised in at least two other threads, but thanks for raising it again. There's no such thing as too much opposition is the face of prosepective tyranny.

But merely spreading the word and/or voting won't solve this problem. Who's to say the next President - be he/she Democrat or Republican - won't do exactly the same thing?

No, the only solution to a President who breaks the law is to prosecute, convict, and sentence him and all of his confederates. And frankly - although I'm loathe to suggest Amendments to the Constitution - here's one I think might be a very good idea:

The President's power to pardon shall not be available to excuse his own actual or potential crimes and misdemeanors. Nor shall a Presidential pardon be available to excuse crimes and misdemeanors that actually or potentially were committed by others to further that President's agenda while in office. Nor shall the pardon of any subsequent President be available to excuse actual or potential crimes and misdemeanors by any previous President, or those of others acting to further that previous President's agenda while in office, until at least 10 years have passed since that previous President has left office.

My greatest worry is that this cabal will continue its power grab - using all the tricks of secrecy, deception, and rhetoric at its disposal - until it is run to ground by overwhelming legal force. And then, in the face of a mountain of indictments, the President will simply utter, "I pardon everyone."

yeah but realistically that has a what? 0.000001 chance of happening? Don't you guys feel that with all these abuses by the current administration that theres nothing really we can do about it short of starting a mini-revolution that will surely be quickly and harshly quashed because there seems to be very few Americans that care?

Yeah I've tried spreading the word, but most of my friends are too busy with their lives, and it seems some of them are the only response is "yeah what else is new?"

As for voting, I already live in California, so my representatives are mostly incumbant Democrats. I can't really take it to the Bush Administration there.

 

[kage69]

I think presidential pardons are an abuse of power and always have been.

Holy crap we agree on something Genx! :shocked: :thumbsup:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Genx87
I hate to bring this up but this is exactly what Clinton did with Susan McDougal in the Whitewater case. She refused to testify against the president and landed herself in jail partly because of it. Clinton in his last days pardoned a person who was in contempt of court for refusing to testify against him. I think presidential pardons are an abuse of power and always have been.

You should hate to bring this up. Relevance = -100, unless you're just trying to make a stronger case for keeping executive actions in compliance with the law, regardless of who's in office.

It is a direct response to the above poster.
This is an example of what presidential pardons can do and why I think they are a ridiculous option for any president.

For what it's worth, I agree this was a direct and appropriate response. There is a fundamental flaw in the system when the President can pardon people who break the law on his behalf, regardless of the political party in power. It puts the President above the law in a very real way.

I don't think the Clinton/Starr witch hunt is exactly apples to apples with the current scandals, but the principle applies just the same.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Psycological Stability

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shira

The President's power to pardon shall not be available to excuse his own actual or potential crimes and misdemeanors. Nor shall a Presidential pardon be available to excuse crimes and misdemeanors that actually or potentially were committed by others to further that President's agenda while in office. Nor shall the pardon of any subsequent President be available to excuse actual or potential crimes and misdemeanors by any previous President, or those of others acting to further that previous President's agenda while in office, until at least 10 years have passed since that previous President has left office.

My greatest worry is that this cabal will continue its power grab - using all the tricks of secrecy, deception, and rhetoric at its disposal - until it is run to ground by overwhelming legal force. And then, in the face of a mountain of indictments, the President will simply utter, "I pardon everyone."

I hate to bring this up but this is exactly what Clinton did with Susan McDougal in the Whitewater case. She refused to testify against the president and landed herself in jail partly because of it. Clinton in his last days pardoned a person who was in contempt of court for refusing to testify against him. I think presidential pardons are an abuse of power and always have been.

There IS a signficant difference between Clinton's pardon of McDougal and a potential Bush pardon of those who have facilitated NSA-gate: Clinton's alleged illegalities (in Whitewater) occurred PRIOR to his being president, and were not an abuse of his Presidential power. Bush's alleged illegalities DID occur (and continue to occur) during his term of office and DO (allegedly) represent an abuse of Presidential power.

So Clinton's pardon of McDougal really is not of the same order of magnitude as a prospective Bush pardon of NSA-gate co-conspirators.

 

[Kibbo86]

Originally posted by: shira

There IS a signficant difference between Clinton's pardon of McDougal and a potential Bush pardon of those who have facilitated NSA-gate: Clinton's alleged illegalities (in Whitewater) occurred PRIOR to his being president, and were not an abuse of his Presidential power. Bush's alleged illegalities DID occur (and continue to occur) during his term of office and DO (allegedly) represent an abuse of Presidential power.

So Clinton's pardon of McDougal really is not of the same order of magnitude as a prospective Bush pardon of NSA-gate co-conspirators.

You are saying that it is less bad for a president to break the law exclusively for his own self-interest than to break it in the interests of protecting the American public?

Or at least, that's how one could interpret your statement.

No president should use the power of veto in any case where one could contrue a reasonable conflict of interest. You could use the same case law that applies to judges recusing themselves from trials.

Pointing out the differences between the two forgiving presidents doesn't really lead to an illuminating conversation. Clinton pardoned crimes that happened before he was president. Bush pardoned crimes from which he did not personally profit. I don't really see how either one is morally superior to the other.

 

[cumhail]

Originally posted by: Kibbo86

You are saying that it is less bad for a president to break the law exclusively for his own self-interest than to break it in the interests of protecting the American public?

Or at least, that's how one could interpret your statement.

No, he's saying it's worse to use presidential power specifically to pardon his own presidential improprieties than his personal ones... and that it sets a dangerous precedent (though one could intepret, I supposed, however he chooses to interpret it). Basically any time a President is of the same party as both houses of Congress, he'll be able to do whatever he wants, while in office, and then make it go away on his way out.

No Democrat-controlled Congress will impeach a Democrat, nor will any Republican-controlled Congress impeach a Republican... because regardless of whether or not they think what he or she did was wrong, they know the impeachment process would hurt their own party and their own chances at reelection. So this scenario effectively takes away the last level of accountability, in such a situation, for Bush, today, and for future Presidents who have congressional support, in the future.

cumhail

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
The King reference is supposed to be a joke - but it's really not much of a stretch.

If he doesn't know any history he should not refer to it even in jest. He has some idea that we can have a common ideological understanding of history. And his knowledge of what actually happened in history is absurdly basic: "Like the old English kings who insisted that Parliament could not tell them what to do". He should learn some history before mouthing off about it.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
The King reference is supposed to be a joke - but it's really not much of a stretch.

If he doesn't know any history he should not refer to it even in jest. He has some idea that we can have a common ideological understanding of history. And his knowledge of what actually happened in history is absurdly basic: "Like the old English kings who insisted that Parliament could not tell them what to do". He should learn some history before mouthing off about it.

Are you saying Bush isn't trying to interpret the Constitution in a manner that gives him the powers of a monarch?

 

[CSMR]

No

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
The King reference is supposed to be a joke - but it's really not much of a stretch.

If he doesn't know any history he should not refer to it even in jest. He has some idea that we can have a common ideological understanding of history. And his knowledge of what actually happened in history is absurdly basic: "Like the old English kings who insisted that Parliament could not tell them what to do". He should learn some history before mouthing off about it.

Actually it was more like George the third through the Prime Minister could tell Parliament what to do. Which he did.

So an analogy between George the younger and George III is apt.

"George was determined to recover the prerogative lost to the ministerial council by the first two Georges; in the first two decades of the reign, he methodically weakened the Whig party through bribery, coercion and patronage. "

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: PELarson
Actaully it was more like George the third through the Prime Minister could tell Parliament what to do. Which he did.

Where are your history books which demonstrate that the prime ministers Pitt the younger and Elder, Lord North, Portland, etc. were under a dictatorship of George III? Where are your works that show that parliament was under the control of the prime minister and king? The world awaits your revolutionary new insights.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: PELarson
Actaully it was more like George the third through the Prime Minister could tell Parliament what to do. Which he did.

Where are your history books which demonstrate that the prime ministers Pitt the younger and Elder, Lord North, Portland, etc. were under a dictatorship of George III? Where are your works that show that parliament was under the control of the prime minister and king? The world awaits your revolutionary new insights.

If you can find copies start with "The American Revolution" 4 volumes by Sir G. O. Trevelyan, Bart. , O.M.(English author) and "The American Revolution" 2 volumes by John Fiske(American author).

Start with the Fiske volume 1. Just read from about page 39 through 45 or so.

Blast I always add a R to Fiske's name, fixed.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
The King reference is supposed to be a joke - but it's really not much of a stretch.

If he doesn't know any history he should not refer to it even in jest. He has some idea that we can have a common ideological understanding of history. And his knowledge of what actually happened in history is absurdly basic: "Like the old English kings who insisted that Parliament could not tell them what to do". He should learn some history before mouthing off about it.

Are you saying Bush isn't trying to interpret the Constitution in a manner that gives him the powers of a monarch?

He definitely is.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: PELarson
If you can find copies start with "The American Revolution" 4 volumes by Sir G. O. Trevelyan, Bart. , O.M.(English author) and "The American Revolution" 2 volumes by John Fiske(American author).

Start with the Fiske volume 1. Just read from about page 39 through 45 or so.

Blast I always add a R to Fiske's name, fixed.

I would be surprised if even these people - one a British Whig politician serving in Glastone's government who adopted a position against George III and in favour of the american revolution - were able to portray the prime ministers of George III as puppets and parliament as subservient. None of these parties had entire power; they each struggled for power over various issues, such as wars (seven years, revolutionary) and appointment of ministers and prime ministers. If you want to take a position contrary to what is generally accepted by historians, please defend it. Use arguments from Trevelyan and Fiske by all means.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: PELarson
If you can find copies start with "The American Revolution" 4 volumes by Sir G. O. Trevelyan, Bart. , O.M.(English author) and "The American Revolution" 2 volumes by John Fiske(American author).

Start with the Fiske volume 1. Just read from about page 39 through 45 or so.

Blast I always add a R to Fiske's name, fixed.

I would be surprised if even these people - one a British Whig politician serving in Glastone's government who adopted a position against George III and in favour of the american revolution - were able to portray the prime ministers of George III as puppets and parliament as subservient. None of these parties had entire power; they each struggled for power over various issues, such as wars (seven years, revolutionary) and appointment of ministers and prime ministers. If you want to take a position contrary to what is generally accepted by historians, please defend it. Use arguments from Trevelyan and Fiske by all means.

So don't believe. Your failure!