If I Had $40 Million
ant and dec wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote: > > ant and dec wrote: > >> Autymn D. C. wrote: > >>> ant and dec wrote: > >>>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc. > >>>>> I talk you (ant and dec, more of stroke-patients' grunts than names). > >>>>> I suggest you get a life, deef 'smrow. |
If I Had $40 Million
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote: >> Autymn D. C. wrote: >>> ant and dec wrote: >>>> Autymn D. C. wrote: >>>>> ant and dec wrote: >>>>>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc. >>>>>>> I talk you (ant and dec, more of stroke-patients' grunts than names). >>>>>>> I suggest you get a life, deef 'smrow. > You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc. |
The Status of animals
"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ups.com... > Karen Winter lied: > >> Leif Erikson wrote: >> >> <snip> >> > The "movement" toward treating domestic animals as >> > something other than property is rapidly diminishing. >> >> It's a matter of perception to a degree, > > No, it isn't. > > >> but the >> evidence is, you are incorrect. > > The evidence is I am correct. > > >> Companion animals, > > Pets. The nauseating politically correct term "companion animals" has > not caught on, and will not. Well, here in Ohio I used to call my ex-wife my companion animal. She reminded me a lot of a dog (besides the obvious "bitch" connection) in that she used to take her toys (lipstick, eyebrow pencil, armpit hair mower, lift-and-separate bra, etc. and strew them all over the bathroom like a dog does with their bones and squeekie toys. > > >> certainly, are being seen less and less as property. > > Not true. A few isolated bastions of PC weirdness, e.g. San Francisco > - it doesn't get weirder than Frisco - have made halting moves in this > direction, but it stopped there. The Dubuque, IA department of animal > control is not going to be referring to "companion animals" any time > soon, if ever, and people there will continue to *own* their pets, not > be referred to (nauseatingly) as their "guardians". I dare say, Karen, > that that Santa Fe, NM department of animal control probably does not > refer to pets as "companion animals", and undoubtedly *does* recognize > that people own their pets, and may buy and sell them. > > >> I gave some examples of why this is so earlier. It's >> telling that even the anti-AR posters here, in general, >> do not argue that companion animals > > Pets. Speak plain English, Karen. > >> are *merely* >> property, but that, although animals are legally property, >> their "owners" nevertheless don't see them in that way, >> and don't treat them like property. > > Pet owners do see their pets as property. They don't treat them the > same way they would treat a stepladder, but that doesn't change the > fact that pet owners regard their pets as property. Some folks treat them worse than they do their stepladder... I bring my ladder in when I am done with it and put it away. My neighbor makes his dog sit out in the snow and cold all winter. The poor girl whines and cries all night. Whether you call them pets, companion animals, dogs, cats, or as I do with my little one... "Pal," It isn't what you call them, it is how you interact with them. I don't invite the local pig to come inside at night, nor do I fix a meal and serve it on a placemat next to my stove. I do for my pal. And most of the time I would even fix a meal for my ex and serve it on a placemat... even putting it on the table since she had such a hard time bending over for all the flubber. The ex is history now... my pal remains.I call that an improvement, no matter where I live. > |
If I Had $40 Million
ant and dec wrote: > Autymn D. C. wrote: > > ant and dec wrote: > >> Autymn D. C. wrote: > >>> ant and dec wrote: > >>>> Autymn D. C. wrote: > >>>>> ant and dec wrote: > >>>>>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc. > >>>>>>> I talk you (ant and dec, more of stroke-patients' grunts than names). > >>>>>>> I suggest you get a life, deef 'smrow. |
If I Had $40 Million
ant and dec wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote: > > ant and dec wrote: > >> Autymn D. C. wrote: > >>> ant and dec wrote: > >>>> Autymn D. C. wrote: > >>>>> ant and dec wrote: > >>>>>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc. > >>>>>>> I talk you (ant and dec, more of stroke-patients' grunts than names). > >>>>>>> I suggest you get a life, deef 'smrow. |
If I Had $40 Million
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote: >> Autymn D. C. wrote: >>> ant and dec wrote: >>>> Autymn D. C. wrote: >>>>> ant and dec wrote: >>>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote: >>>>>>> ant and dec wrote: >>>>>>>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc. >>>>>>>>> I talk you (ant and dec, more of stroke-patients' grunts than names). >>>>>>>>> I suggest you get a life, deef 'smrow. > You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc. |
If I Had $40 Million
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote: >> Autymn D. C. wrote: >>> ant and dec wrote: >>>> Autymn D. C. wrote: >>>>> ant and dec wrote: >>>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote: >>>>>>> ant and dec wrote: >>>>>>>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc. >>>>>>>>> I talk you (ant and dec, more of stroke-patients' grunts than names). >>>>>>>>> I suggest you get a life, deef 'smrow. > You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc. |
The Status of animals
> wrote in message ...
> > "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > > "oscar" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >> I don't invite the local pig to come inside at night, nor do I fix a meal > >> and serve it on a placemat next to my stove. I do for my pal. > > > > The difference between your 'pal' and the ham on your plate being? > > The difference is about 400 pounds and my pal is eating the pig too. If it > is good enough for her, it is good enough for me. If that's the only difference, you happily eat animals who could be pals. > to get around what "YOU" want, and then deciding to act as my dietary > advisor by telling me to get off animal protein. In other words I said one > thing, but you read something different... in your mind at least. When your attitude is somewhat more serious, I'll be more inclined to spend the time and effort to read what you're saying. Otherwise.. > Some people eat dogs. In some places cows are sacred, but not America. Many > an "Old Paint" has saved a human life by running their hooves off... and > then being eaten in the end for food. Some animals even eat people. I am not > trying to change the natural order of the universe... you are. I eat meat, I'm not.. you are. In the natural order humans are a frugivores. |
The Status of animals
|
The Status of animals
Karen Winter, lying statist ordinaire, blabbered:
> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Pearl, the issue I raised in another thread was that I didn't think the > > Federal Government should insert themselves into the issue of saving the > > grizzly because that job is reserved to the states or to the people, per the > > Constitution. > > One problem with that is that about the only place where grizzly > bears are still found are national parks. The federal government > has jurisdiction over them. Karen supports government. <yawn> |
The Status of animals
"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ... > wrote: > > <snip> > >> Pearl, the issue I raised in another thread was that I didn't think the >> Federal Government should insert themselves into the issue of saving the >> grizzly because that job is reserved to the states or to the people, per >> the Constitution. > > One problem with that is that about the only place where grizzly > bears are still found are national parks. The federal government > has jurisdiction over them. > > <snip> Actually, you didn't go far enough... the Federal Government has no business owning any land in a state, for a park or otherwise, except as needed for national defense or other Constitutionally allowed activity. Parks are not one of those... so sorry... just because they have overstepped the law of the land does not negate my position... in fact it reinforces it! |
The Status of animals
"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message oups.com... > Karen Winter, lying statist ordinaire, blabbered: >> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> > Pearl, the issue I raised in another thread was that I didn't think the >> > Federal Government should insert themselves into the issue of saving >> > the >> > grizzly because that job is reserved to the states or to the people, >> > per the >> > Constitution. >> >> One problem with that is that about the only place where grizzly >> bears are still found are national parks. The federal government >> has jurisdiction over them. > > Karen supports government. <yawn> > Well, I support government too... Constitutional Government... and then the forced support folks like Karen and friends have foisted on others. It is now way past time for this to stop. |
The Status of animals
|
The Status of animals
Karen Winter, statist ordinaire, screamed:
> wrote: > > > "Glorfindel" > wrote in message > > >>One problem with that is that about the only place where grizzly > >>bears are still found are national parks. The federal government > >>has jurisdiction over them. > > >><snip> > > > Actually, you didn't go far enough... the Federal Government has no business > > owning any land in a state, for a park or otherwise, except as needed for > > national defense or other Constitutionally allowed activity. Parks are not > > one of those... > > Where does the Constitution state that the national government > cannot set aside land for national parks? Wrong question, Karen; but as a doctrinaire totalitarian-leaning statist, you *would* get it wrong in this way. The correct question is, where in the Constitution does it state that the national government *may* set aside land for parks? Constitution 101 for Karen Winter: under the 10th amendment, those powers not *explicitly* delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people. Unless the Constitution explicitly authorizes the federal government to set aside land for parks, or unless some reasonable interpretation of the Constitution can be stretched to cover it, the activity is prohibited to the federal government. Whether the Constitution does, either explicitly or by a reasonable implicit argument, grant the power to maintain parks to the federal government is irrelevant. What is relevant, here, is that you *assume* that the federal government can do things unless the Constitution expressly forbids them, and that interpretation is WRONG. The correct interpretation is that the federal government may NOT do things, unless the Constitution authorizes them. As a doctrinaire totalitarian leading statist, of course, Karen naturally makes the wrong assumption. |
The Status of animals
Leif Erikson wrote:
wrote: >>>><snip> >>>Actually, you didn't go far enough... the Federal Government has no business >>>owning any land in a state, for a park or otherwise, except as needed for >>>national defense or other Constitutionally allowed activity. Parks are not >>>one of those... >>Where does the Constitution state that the national government >>cannot set aside land for national parks? > Wrong question, No, correct question. The federal government has been setting aside land for national parks since the time of Teddy Roosevelt. There is quite a long precedent for it. To set that aside would require some sort of legal challenge to an established policy. National parks are for the benefit of the whole population, like a national currency or a national highway system. I suspect something could be found under interstate commerce regulation. We'd have to look up what the original legal authorization was. <snip> |
The Status of animals
Karen Winter, would-be totalitarian and statist ordinaire, lied:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > wrote: > > >>>><snip> > > >>>Actually, you didn't go far enough... the Federal Government has no business > >>>owning any land in a state, for a park or otherwise, except as needed for > >>>national defense or other Constitutionally allowed activity. Parks are not > >>>one of those... > > >>Where does the Constitution state that the national government > >>cannot set aside land for national parks? > > > Wrong question, > > No, correct question. The federal government has been setting > aside land for national parks since the time of Teddy Roosevelt. No, WRONG question, Karen. Wrong observation, too - don't you ****ing "vegans" always point out that Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy? The question is WRONG, Karen, you totalitarian asshole, for the reasons I elaborated: you asked where in the Constitution it says they may not, and I am telling you, authoritatively, that the federal government may *only* do those things the Constitution authorizes it to do. If the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to do some thing, Karen, then the legal and constitutional presumption is that the federal government MAY NOT do that thing. That's just how the U.S. Constitution is, Karen. It is how it has alway been. |
The Status of animals
Leif Erikson wrote:
Glorfindel: >>>>Where does the Constitution state that the national government >>>>cannot set aside land for national parks? >>>Wrong question, >>No, correct question. The federal government has been setting >>aside land for national parks since the time of Teddy Roosevelt. > No, WRONG question. Wrong observation, too - don't you ****ing > "vegans" always point out that Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy? In legal terms, it's precedent, not tradition. > I am telling you, authoritatively, that the federal government > may *only* do those things the Constitution authorizes it to do. The system was set up by an act of Congress, and Congress are the representatives of the people. Unless there is some legal impediment, Congress ought to be able to express the will of the people -- as the Constitution states -- to set up a national system of parks. <snip> |
The Status of animals
Karen Winter lied:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > Glorfindel: No, it's Karen Winter. Leave it alone. You are Karen Winter, and we know you're Karen Winter. Use whatever posting name you like, but your denial that you are Karen Winter is false. You are Karen Winter. Leave "Karen Winter" as I have written it. > > >>>>Where does the Constitution state that the national government > >>>>cannot set aside land for national parks? > > >>>Wrong question, > > >>No, correct question. The federal government has been setting > >>aside land for national parks since the time of Teddy Roosevelt. > > > > No, WRONG question. Wrong observation, too - don't you ****ing > > "vegans" always point out that Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy? > > In legal terms, it's precedent, not tradition. Another appeal to government - how lovely, Karen-the-statist. > > I am telling you, authoritatively, that the federal government > > may *only* do those things the Constitution authorizes it to do. > > The system was set up by an act of Congress, and Congress > are the representatives of the people. Congress may not authorize the federal government to do things that the Constitution does not allow it to do, Karen. This is basic civics. |
The Status of animals
"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ... > wrote: > >> "Glorfindel" > wrote in message > >>>One problem with that is that about the only place where grizzly >>>bears are still found are national parks. The federal government >>>has jurisdiction over them. > >>><snip> > >> Actually, you didn't go far enough... the Federal Government has no >> business >> owning any land in a state, for a park or otherwise, except as needed for >> national defense or other Constitutionally allowed activity. Parks are >> not >> one of those... > > Where does the Constitution state that the national government > cannot set aside land for national parks? Many of the parks > are in areas which were under control of the national government > as territories before they were granted statehood. My friend... the Constitution lists the activities the Federal Government CAN engage in. So your not being able to find where it says you can't is correct. Our founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom along with their practical common sense realized that a listing of what couldn't be done would require a crystal ball into the future and be impossibly huge and impractical. They decided to write a Constitution which listed those things which a central governing body would need to do for all of the country, and as they put it (paraphrased by me here) leave the remainder of activities to the individual states or the citizens of those states. > I have no problem with both state and federal government, and private > individuals, setting aside land for parks. On a personal level, fine. But we are supposed to have a government of laws not of changing opinions and desires...men's desires. That we are getting away from this concept is why we find ourselves in so many pickles today. >The more wilderness areas, > the better. That is your opinion... but you can only effect your opinion through Constitutional laws by representatives you elect. But... using your opinion to illustrate a point... if the more wilderness the better, then it logically follows that 100% total wilderness would be the best possible condition. Now you may very well think that... I do not. I also don't think you are quite ready to bulldoze your home, returning it to wilderness, and go live on the moon... or do you? When you do, stop by my place and convince me to join you. > There are already far too many intrusions into > what are supposed to be "wilderness" areas, such as cut-rate > grazing at below-market rates on federal land. Who gets to determine what "too many" is... you? I didn't think we had a king or a dictator in this country. Congratulations on your promotion. > These areas are not > supposed to subsidize inefficient ranchers; they are supposed to > preserve some remnant of our natural ecosystem for future > generations of *ALL* our residents and visitors. Fine... again if the people, collectively in any given state, so determine that, it is within their right to do so... but the Constitution has left that to the states precisely to prevent the Federal Government from becoming a Leviathan... Oscar |
The Status of animals
"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ups.com... > Karen Winter, would-be totalitarian and statist ordinaire, lied: > >> Leif Erikson wrote: >> >> wrote: >> >> >>>><snip> >> >> >>>Actually, you didn't go far enough... the Federal Government has no >> >>>business >> >>>owning any land in a state, for a park or otherwise, except as needed >> >>>for >> >>>national defense or other Constitutionally allowed activity. Parks are >> >>>not >> >>>one of those... >> >> >>Where does the Constitution state that the national government >> >>cannot set aside land for national parks? >> >> > Wrong question, >> >> No, correct question. The federal government has been setting >> aside land for national parks since the time of Teddy Roosevelt. > > No, WRONG question, Karen. Wrong observation, too - don't you ****ing > "vegans" always point out that Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy? > > The question is WRONG, Karen, you totalitarian asshole, for the reasons > I elaborated: you asked where in the Constitution it says they may > not, and I am telling you, authoritatively, that the federal government > may *only* do those things the Constitution authorizes it to do. If > the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to do some > thing, Karen, then the legal and constitutional presumption is that the > federal government MAY NOT do that thing. > > That's just how the U.S. Constitution is, Karen. It is how it has > alway been. > Good show L.E... Karen, uncle Teddy R came well after the Constitution... and yes, some things are being done that are not really allowed.. as I said, that is why we find ourselves in a pickle today. If you feel strongly about this... fine. Do something about it... but do it correctly... meaning do it legally.... meaning, propose an amendment and get it passed. Sabe? |
The Status of animals
"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ... > Leif Erikson wrote: > > Glorfindel: > >>>>>Where does the Constitution state that the national government >>>>>cannot set aside land for national parks? > >>>>Wrong question, > >>>No, correct question. The federal government has been setting >>>aside land for national parks since the time of Teddy Roosevelt. > > >> No, WRONG question. Wrong observation, too - don't you ****ing >> "vegans" always point out that Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy? > > In legal terms, it's precedent, not tradition. > >> I am telling you, authoritatively, that the federal government >> may *only* do those things the Constitution authorizes it to do. > > The system was set up by an act of Congress, and Congress > are the representatives of the people. Unless there is some > legal impediment, Congress ought to be able to express the > will of the people -- as the Constitution states -- to set > up a national system of parks. (as the Constitution states -- to set up a national system of parks.) New one on me... Here is what I found in my copy: Section 8 - Powers of Congress The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and Post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Still looking.... Wow Karen is it in your copy? Do you have a copy? Have you ever even read it? The CATO Institute will send you one free... just go to their website and ask.... and trust me... it won't hurt a bit! |
The Status of animals
Leif Erikson wrote:
Glorfindel wrote: >>The system was set up by an act of Congress, and Congress >>are the representatives of the people. > Congress may not authorize the federal government to do things that the > Constitution does not allow it to do. This is basic civics. If it is not stated specifically in the Constitution, then powers are reserved to the States *OR* to the people. As their elected representatives, Congress are the people. So, unless there is some legal reason why the people should not have the authority to act, the people, in the form of their elected representatives, can establish a national park system. The people did so, by act of Congress. The executive branch of the government signed the act into law, and the legislative branch has, so far, established no legal challenge. So all three branches of government concur -- the people have decided that they want a national park system. Don't YOU want a national park system? I certainly do. |
The Status of animals
|
The Status of Karen Winter's vile statist soul
Karen Winter lied and showed her ass again:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > Glorfindel wrote: No, *Karen Winter* wrote. Leave it alone, bitch. > >>> The system was set up by an act of Congress, and Congress >>> are the representatives of the people. > > >> Congress may not authorize the federal government to do things that the >> Constitution does not allow it to do. This is basic civics. > > > If it is not stated specifically in the Constitution, then > powers are reserved to the States *OR* to the people. > As their elected representatives, Congress are the people. False, but a typical statist's response. Congress is the people's representative lawmaking body *at the federal level only*. You are wrong. You're also a lying asshole. |
The Status of animals
Karen Winter flim-flammed and dissembled:
> wrote: > > <snip> > >> They decided to write a Constitution which listed those things which a >> central governing body would need to do for all of the country, and as >> they put it (paraphrased by me here) leave the remainder of activities >> to the individual states or the citizens of those states. > > > Glorfindel: No, Karen Winter. You are Karen Winter. Drop the charade, Karen. > > But it does not say that the citizens have to act only > at the state level. The citizens are also citizens of > the United States as a whole, and can act at a national > level in the persons of their congressional representatives. Congress may not pass laws that establish things not permitted to the federal government in the Constitution. It's that simple. Your error is that easy to establish. You are not a constitutional scholar in any way, and it is obvious that you are pulling constitutional interpretations out your ass. |
The Status of animals
Leif Erikson wrote:
>> wrote: >> <snip> >>> They decided to write a Constitution which listed those things which >>> a central governing body would need to do for all of the country, and >>> as they put it (paraphrased by me here) leave the remainder of >>> activities to the individual states or the citizens of those states. >> Glorfindel: >> But it does not say that the citizens have to act only >> at the state level. The citizens are also citizens of >> the United States as a whole, and can act at a national >> level in the persons of their congressional representatives. > Congress may not pass laws that establish things not permitted to the > federal government in the Constitution. However, there is nothing in the Constitution which does not permit the national government to set up national parks. Some things are not permitted, for example to establish a state religion. These things are explicitly stated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Things which do not violate any of the provisions stated in the Constitution can be established by the authority given to the people, by the elected representatives of the people in Congress. If someone believes a specific law is unconstitutional, it can be challenged in court. That's what the legal system is for: to determine if something is constitutional or not. If you think national parks are unconstitutional, hire a lawyer and challenge the law. Don't you think you would be better occupied challenging the constitutionality of Bush's wiretapping scheme? |
Constitutionality
Leif Erikson wrote:
>> Glorfindel wrote: >>>> The system was set up by an act of Congress, and Congress >>>> are the representatives of the people. >>> Congress may not authorize the federal government to do things that the >>> Constitution does not allow it to do. This is basic civics. So -- where does the Constitution say anything about not allowing national parks? >> If it is not stated specifically in the Constitution, then >> powers are reserved to the States *OR* to the people. >> As their elected representatives, Congress are the people. > Congress is the people's > representative lawmaking body *at the federal level only*. And they have the right to set up *national* parks at the federal level. |
The Status of animals
> wrote in message ...
> (as the Constitution states -- I find it incredible that a poster who votes for Bush "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, It's just a goddamned piece of paper!", keeps bringing up the U.S Constitution in response to invitations to the American public to exercise their constitutionally protected right of freedom of speech, concerning the protection of native species, in their own right, and as part of their/our natural heritage. I'll have to see you renounce the Bush administrations actions as documented below, before believing you're not just using the Constitution now because it suits your purposes to do so. 'Despite opposition by many prominent Republicans, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush are mounting an intensive public relations campaign to justify their pre-ordained invasion of Iraq. A preemptive strike against Iraq would violate the Constitution and the United Nations Charter. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress, not the president, to debate and decide to declare war on another country. The War Powers Resolution provides that the "constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories, or possessions or its armed forces." Congress has not declared war on Iraq, no statute authorizes an invasion and Iraq has not attacked the United States, its territories, possessions or armed forces. President Bush's lawyers have concluded that he needs no new approval from Congress. They cite a 1991 Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in the Persian Gulf, and the September 14, 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. These two resolutions do not provide a basis to circumvent Congressional approval for attacking Iraq. The January 12, 1991 Persian Gulf Resolution authorized the use of force pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 678, which was directed at ensuring the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. That license ended on April 6, 1991, when Iraq formalized a cease-fire and notified the Security Council. The September 14, 2001 resolution authorized the use of armed force "against those responsible for the recent [Sept. 11] attacks against the United States." There is no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. A preemptive invasion of Iraq would also violate the United Nations Charter, which is a treaty and part of the supreme law of the United States under Article 6, clause 2 of the Constitution. It requires the United States to settle all disputes by peaceful means and not use military force in the absence of an armed attack. The U.N. Charter empowers only the Security Council to authorize the use of force, unless a member state is acting in individual or collective self-defense. Iraq has not attacked this country, or any other country in the past 11 years. None of Iraq's neighbors have appealed to the Security Council to protect them from an imminent attack by Iraq, because they do not feel threatened. .......' http://www.representativepress.org/V...tionalLaw.html 'And then "the leaks" began. The photographs and testimonials of torture had empowered those on the inside to contact the media with the bombshells. We learned that Bush’s hired guns had secretly penned two tomes, one for the Defense Department and the other for the Justice Department. Both documents purport to justify the use of torture under the President’s war-making power, notwithstanding the Constitution’s clear mandate that only Congress can make the laws. The Congressional powers enumerated in the Constitution: "Congress shall have the power - to define and punish - offenses against the law of nations; to declare war - and make rules concerning captures on land and water; - [and] to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." As commander-in-chief, however, the President has a "constitutionally superior position" to Congress, according to the memo written for the Defense Department. It seems the president’s men have now taken on the tripartite Separation of Powers doctrine enshrined in the Constitution. Their constitutional apostasy flies in the face of the landmark ruling in the Korean War case, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, where the Supreme Court held, "In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker." For, as the Court noted, "The Founders of this Nation entrusted the law making power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times." Try as they might, the lawyers commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld and presidential counsel Alberto R. Gonzales were unable to find a loophole in the Torture Convention’s absolute proscription on torture. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture," according to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Torture Convention, ratified by the United States, is part of the supreme law of the land under the Constitution. Congress implemented our obligations under this treaty by enacting the Torture Statute, which provides 20 years, life in prison, or even the death penalty if death results from torture committed by a U.S. citizen abroad. The USA PATRIOT Act added the crime of conspiracy to commit torture to the Torture Statute. Bush’s lawyers used tortured reasoning to opine that the Torture Statute cannot be utilized to prosecute Americans in Guantanamo because it lies within the "territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and accordingly is within the United States." The Bush administration has hypocritically taken the opposite position in denying the Guantanamo prisoners access to U.S. courts to challenge their indefinite detention. The Torture Convention prohibits the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering on a person to (a) obtain a confession, (b) punish him, or (c) intimidate or coerce him based on discrimination of any kind. To violate this treaty, the pain or suffering must be inflicted "by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." Ashcroft’s legal eagles redefined torture, narrowing it to require the infliction of physical pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." For mental pain or suffering, they would require "significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years." The Istanbul Protocol of 9 August 1999 is the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It sets forth international guidelines for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Included in the Protocol’s list of torture methods are rape, blunt trauma, forced positioning, asphyxiation, crush injuries, humiliations, death threats, forced engagement in practices violative of religion, and threat of attacks by dogs. The photographs and reports from prisoners in Abu Ghraib include all of these techniques. Moreover, the Defense Department analysis maintained that a torturer could get off if he acted in "good faith," not thinking his actions would result in severe mental harm. If the torturer based his conduct on the advice in these memos, he would, according to this argument, have acted in good faith. Who authored the "whorific" rationalizations for the Justice and Defense Departments? A Washington Post editorial called it "a shocking and immoral set of justifications for torture." William J. Haynes II, Bush’s nominee for a lifetime seat on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, oversaw the preparation of the report for the Department of Defense. And another Bush nominee for a federal judgeship, former Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee, now a permanent judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, drafted the document for the Department of Justice. How cozy. Not only has Bush received legal [sic] advice on how to get around our obligations under the Torture Convention and the Torture Statute. His lawyer Alberto Gonzales, opining on whether to apply the Geneva Conventions to Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners, told Bush the "new paradigm" of the war on terror "renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." Evidently the Bush administration thinks prohibitions on torture, and Congress’ lawmaking authority in our own Constitution, are quaint. Gonzales, who is often mentioned as a prospective Bush nominee for the Supreme Court, went on to assure his boss that "your determination [to bypass the Geneva Conventions] would create a reasonable basis in law that Section 2441 [the War Crimes Statute] does not apply, which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution." So Bush’s own decision to bypass Geneva gives him a defense to violating Geneva. ... The Constitution mandates the impeachment of a President for high crimes and misdemeanors. There is no higher crime than a war crime. Willful killing, torture and inhuman treatment constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, which are considered war crimes under The War Crimes Act of 1996. Even if Bush’s lawyers could successfully parse the meaning of torture, they cannot deny that the atrocities we’ve seen constitute inhuman treatment. ...' http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0406/S00167.htm Well... what say you, oscar? |
The Status of animals
Karen Winter, statist ordinaire, got it wrong again:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > >>> wrote: > > >>> <snip> > > >>>> They decided to write a Constitution which listed those things which >>>> a central governing body would need to do for all of the country, >>>> and as they put it (paraphrased by me here) leave the remainder of >>>> activities to the individual states or the citizens of those states. > > >>> Glorfindel: No, Karen Winter. Leave it alone. > > >>> But it does not say that the citizens have to act only >>> at the state level. The citizens are also citizens of >>> the United States as a whole, and can act at a national >>> level in the persons of their congressional representatives. > > > >> Congress may not pass laws that establish things not permitted to the >> federal government in the Constitution. > > > However, there is nothing in the Constitution which > does not permit the national government to set up national > parks. Karen: there must be something IN the Constitution that *DOES* permit them to set up national parks. You keep getting it backward. The federal government is not permitted to do anything not expressly forbidden to it by the Constitution; it is permitted to do ONLY those things delegated to it in the Constitution. You are fundamentally wrong on this. |
Karen Winter's Ignorance of Constitutionality
Karen Winter lied:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > >>> Karen Winter lied: > > >>>>> The system was set up by an act of Congress, and Congress >>>>> are the representatives of the people. > > >>>> Congress may not authorize the federal government to do things that the >>>> Constitution does not allow it to do. This is basic civics. > > > So -- where does the Constitution say anything about not > allowing national parks? Karen: you keep making the same error. The burden of evidence is on you to find something in the Constitution that ALLOWS the government to set up parks. This is funny: you are making an extra-constitutional argument for more government power! John Mercer was absolute right about you, Karen: I think that if you were a real anarchist, you would be ashamed of [your jackbooted mother-and-child murdering son]. But we both know that you're not. Not just you both - we *all* know you're no anarchist, Karen, and never were. >>> If it is not stated specifically in the Constitution, then >>> powers are reserved to the States *OR* to the people. >>> As their elected representatives, Congress are the people. > > >> Congress is the people's representative lawmaking body *at the federal >> level only*. > > > And they have the right to set up *national* parks > at the federal level. Not unless the Constitution provides the authority, either expressly or as an implied function of some other power GRANTED to the federal government under the Constitution. |
Constitutionality
Leif Erikson wrote:
Glorfindel: >>> Congress is the people's representative lawmaking body *at the >>> federal level only*. >> And they have the right to set up *national* parks >> at the federal level. > Not unless the Constitution provides the authority, either expressly or > as an implied function of some other power GRANTED to the federal > government under the Constitution. It did so: Congress authorized national parks. If anyone thinks it's unconstitutional, he has a right to hire a lawyer and fight it in court. Go right ahead. |
National Parks
pearl wrote:
<snip> > I'll have to see you renounce the Bush administrations actions > as documented below, before believing you're not just using > the Constitution now because it suits your purposes to do so. Both he and Leif are. There are so many more unconstitutional and egregious violations of law and the constitution by the Bush government, yet they attack *national parks*? <snip> > Congress has not declared war on Iraq, no statute authorizes an > invasion and Iraq has not attacked the United States, its territories, > possessions or armed forces. <snip> > A preemptive invasion of Iraq would also violate the United Nations > Charter, which is a treaty and part of the supreme law of the United > States under Article 6, clause 2 of the Constitution. <snip> > use of torture New photos have just come out -- it's in U.S. prisons in several areas. Clearly war crimes. <snip> > .. > The Constitution mandates the impeachment of a President for > high crimes and misdemeanors. There is no higher crime than a > war crime. Bush certainly should be impeached. His administration has also violated many of the Constitutionally- protected civil rights of U.S. citizens through the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, and other actions. He was not even elected legally. The U.S. government is clearly under the control of Italian-style corporate fascists -- and Leif and Oscar are attacking the *national park system*? It's insane. |
National Parks
Karen Winter lied and committed further errors:
> shithead lied: > > <snip> > > > I'll have to see you renounce the Bush administrations actions > > as documented below, before believing you're not just using > > the Constitution now because it suits your purposes to do so. > > Both he and Leif are. I am not, and I doubt the other guy is, either. I happen to like the national parks, and I think one can probably easily find that they were established and exist consistent with some constitutionally provided power. My point in this is that your - Karen Winter's - belief that they can exist because they aren't forbidden is flatly wrong. Furthermore, I gleefully point out that you are emerging as the ardent supporter of intrusive, invasive government - it can do whatever isn't prohibited to it, rather than it can do *only* what is constitutionally permitted to it - that John Mercer and I always said you have been. > There are so many more > unconstitutional and egregious violations of law > and the constitution by the Bush government, yet > they attack *national parks*? I am not attacking national parks. I am attacking your totalitarian statist's rationale for government's doing whatever it wants, Karen. You are, indeed, a totalitarian statist, Karen, just as I have said for nearly seven years, and as John Mercer has said for even longer. |
Karen Winter's Abject Ignorance of Constitutionality
Karen Winter, pathological liar, lied again:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > Karen Winter lied and showed her fat ass again: > > >>> Congress is the people's representative lawmaking body *at the > >>> federal level only*. > > >> And they have the right to set up *national* parks > >> at the federal level. > > > Not unless the Constitution provides the authority, either expressly or > > as an implied function of some other power GRANTED to the federal > > government under the Constitution. > > > It did so: Congress authorized national parks. Congress has passed lots of laws subsequently held to be unconstitutional, Karen. The fact that Congress passed laws authorizing the parks is not evidence that the Constitution provides for that power. You don't know what you're talking about regarding the Constitution, Karen; not surprising. As a totalitarian statist, you would pretty much tear it up in order to do what you think should be done, anyway. |
National Parks
"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > <snip> > > > I'll have to see you renounce the Bush administrations actions > > as documented below, before believing you're not just using > > the Constitution now because it suits your purposes to do so. > > Both he and Leif are. There are so many more > unconstitutional and egregious violations of law > and the constitution by the Bush government, yet > they attack *national parks*? Anything that may in any way disturb their precious livestock industry. > <snip> > > > Congress has not declared war on Iraq, no statute authorizes an > > invasion and Iraq has not attacked the United States, its territories, > > possessions or armed forces. > > <snip> > > > A preemptive invasion of Iraq would also violate the United Nations > > Charter, which is a treaty and part of the supreme law of the United > > States under Article 6, clause 2 of the Constitution. > > <snip> > > use of torture > > New photos have just come out -- it's in U.S. prisons in > several areas. Clearly war crimes. > > <snip> > > .. > > The Constitution mandates the impeachment of a President for > > high crimes and misdemeanors. There is no higher crime than a > > war crime. > > Bush certainly should be impeached. > > His administration has also violated many of the Constitutionally- > protected civil rights of U.S. citizens through the Patriot > Act, illegal wiretapping, and other actions. He was not even > elected legally. > > The U.S. government is clearly under the control of > Italian-style corporate fascists -- and Leif and Oscar are > attacking the *national park system*? It's insane. "For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit. For from thorns men do not gather figs, nor from a bramble bush gather they grapes. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil; for of the abundance of his heart his mouth speaketh." Lk 6:39-45 |
National Parks
stupid Lesley histrionically screamed:
> Karen Winter, totalitarian statist, lied: > > > stupid Lesley histrionically screamed: > > > > <snip> > > > > > I'll have to see you renounce the Bush administrations actions > > > as documented below, before believing you're not just using > > > the Constitution now because it suits your purposes to do so. > > > > Both he and Leif are. There are so many more > > unconstitutional and egregious violations of law > > and the constitution by the Bush government, yet > > they attack *national parks*? > > Anything that may in any way disturb their precious livestock industry. > No; just not letting totalitarian statist Karen Winter get away with her bullshit misinterpretation of the Constitution. |
Constitutionality
Leif Erikson wrote:
>>Leif Erikson wrote: > Congress has passed lots of laws subsequently held to be > unconstitutional. The fact that Congress passed laws > authorizing the parks is not evidence that the Constitution provides > for that power. It does show Congress -- which is full of constitutional lawyers -- saw no Constitutional barrier to the law. No legal challenge to the law has indicated anyone else except a few weirdos like you do either. <snip> > As a totalitarian statist, you would pretty > much tear it up in order to do what you think should be done, anyway. Not me -- talk to your buddy Dubya and his handlers about that. |
National Parks
Leif Erikson wrote:
<snip> > I happen to like the national parks, and I think one can probably > easily find that they were established and exist consistent with some > constitutionally provided power. As I said. As every rational person knows. As Congress believed when Congress authorized the system, the president signed, and the court system had no challenge to the law. You're just trying to pick a fight, Leif. If you think the park system is consistent with "some constitutionally provided power" then what do you think that power is? |
National Parks
Karen winter, chronic liar, reflexively lied again:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > <snip> > > I happen to like the national parks, and I think one can probably > > easily find that they were established and exist consistent with some > > constitutionally provided power. > > As I said. No, Karen. That's *not* what you said. What you said is a FLATLY WRONG interpretation of the Constitution: that if it doesn't forbid something to the federal government, Congress may pass a law to achieve it. That is *exactly* backward. One does not look in the Constitution to find those things that are forbidden to the government, and conclude that the government may do anything that isn't listed; RATHER, one looks in the Constitution to see what it says the government may do, and if you don't find it, it is by presumption forbidden. You are wrong. You're also pig-headed. You're also a thorough-going asshole. BTW, has your son been blown up by an improvised explosive device yet? |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter