Jump to content

US Congress crushes down on the flamewars!


Domi

Recommended Posts

Bush signed it and Arlen Specter is a member of his party. The president actually has a lot of control over his party's agenda in the House and Senate, so if a bill like this were passed it would be because the president wanted it to pass.

Link to comment

Pointing out that a person is not responsible for something for which it has been claimed he is, is arguing semantics about as much as pointing out that semantics and anti-Bush talk are different things. I.e. it isn't arguing semantics in any way, shape or form whatsoever.

 

EDIT: I also feel the identity of the person who originated this new law is of far more relevance to the topic than yet more anti-Bush rants.

Link to comment
I think you should have "right" in quotation marks, there.  (Considering that the constitution or any federal law, for that matter, garauntees no such thing.)

It's the Sixth Amendment. However, it's only applicable to a defendant in a criminal trial.

 

The law is, of course, silly.

Link to comment
I think you should have "right" in quotation marks, there.  (Considering that the constitution or any federal law, for that matter, garauntees no such thing.)

It's the Sixth Amendment. However, it's only applicable to a defendant in a criminal trial.

Exactly my point. I've never seen a criminal trial take place on the internet.

 

@NIGHTMARE: I'm wondering how much you know about how policy is set in our neck of the woods. The president dictates the direction of his party. It's been that way for 200 years. If the president didn't want this little nugget to be passed into law, he would have had a "talk" with Mr. Specter. The president has issued no directives to the courts to not enforce the new law. Clinton, when faced with a similar situation (a bill that had an unconstitutional law attached to it but really needed to be passed) signed the bill but directed the courts not to enforce the law at the same time. Bush could have done this, but elected not to.

Link to comment
If the president didn't want this little nugget to be passed into law, he would have had a "talk" with Mr. Specter.

 

I never said Bush didn't want this law to be passed, I said it isn't "his" law. I mean, if being the leader + wanting something automatically makes you the creator of it, then President Bush is the person who created America, the American presidency, the White House, etc. Obviously none of those are the case.

 

Bush might agree with every single aspect of this law, but then again, he may well have only glanced at it for a couple of seconds and then not given it another thought. You're also assigning far too much personal power - not to mention intelligence and initiative - to Bush. It's pretty obvious that certain other people have far more say on Republican policy and the way the country is run than Bush; I mean, while America hasn't exactly been doing great lately, I dread to think what things would be like if someone as stupid as Bush were really in charge.

 

Getting back to this particular law, Arlen Specter is a senator who has been known to disagree with Bush on several ssues (he did start off as a member of the Democrat party after all), and is certainly not any Bush puppet or lap dog, some minor party member who's barely distinguishable from his leader. The fact is that if it weren't for Specter, this law most likely would never have never even existed... and there's absolutely nothing to suggest that this law wouldn't have been created and passed if some other person were the leader of the Republican party and/or the President of America. I'm quite sure there are plenty of political lapdogs to go around.

 

EDIT: grammar

Link to comment

The difference between creating something and approving it most certainly is not just semantics.

 

If it were... well, by that logic I approve of life, therefore I am the creator of all life. I approve of this planet continuing to exist, therefore I am the person responsible for it continuing to exist. Etc.

 

EDIT: Or to stick with the subject of law, if by some miracle a judge approves of this new law and actually sentences someone because of it, by the "approve=create" logic it would suddenly become that judge who created the law.

Link to comment

When the president "approves" (in other words, signs) something, he does create it. If he chose to veto it would have taken a 2/3 vote to override him. By not exercising his Veto power, (or at least refusing to sign it) the president had a hand in creating this bill. He just didn't write it. This little gem also fits right in with items like the Patriot Act or his refusing to follow due process when tapping the phones of Americans. Given the president's continued efforts to whittle away at the privacy rights of Americans it's fairly obvious that the president wanted this to pass.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...