Hate Speech or Free Speech?

Ok, Xceler8x, I call double bull shiite on your characterization of the Patriot Act. It was not made law by presidential decree, but through a bipartisan approval of both houses of congress, with the President signing it into law.

It was obviously flawed as originally enacted - what law isn't? The Patriot Act was amended in 2006, AFTER the Democrats gained control of both houses of congress, again with support from members of both parties.

wcelliot wrote: There is a HUGE difference between behaving unConstitutionally (where the balance of power/checks and balances could intervene... witness the Supreme Court decision today) and in subverting the interpretation of the Constitution to suddenly make your behavior completely acceptable legally. The latter has long term if not permanent implications while the former (as with the abuse of signing statements) carry no lasting legal precedent.

Well..yeah.

For my own education..can you show me some examples of those "long term permanent implications"? I'm not contesting just trying to learn.

Seems to me that using signing statements does set a long term precedent. The next Pres has a wide open door to do the same thing. Imagine that gnashing of teeth that would bring...about the same as now.

This Administration is certainly not "my guys"... and I'm not an apologist for them. (The things they've done are bad enough without the addition of inaccurate charges that they've forever changed the Constitution or Constitutional balance of powers. They may have exceeded them, but they've not changed them.)

My apologies! I was mistaken in reading a team choice into your statements.

I am however, a libertarian student of Constutional law and history...

Pro-legalization then?

Xceler8x wrote:

OK, ok. I call complete bull shiate on that. The prevailing politically right controlled government has done plenty to dismantle any protection they deem as obstructing their ideas of due process and freedom. There are many, many more. To say this is a "left" problem is being foolish by only looking at half of the problem.

Xceler8x: I have to disagree strongly with your characterization of our current government as being politically right controlled. First off, the congress has been controlled by the Democratic party since 2006. Secondly, I would suggest that there are VERY few politically right leaders in our nation. There are lots of posers, but very few real conservatives. For the most part, political leaders who CALL themselves conservative are mostly just trying to make themselves attractive to voters who THINK they are conservative, and both groups fall woefully short. Thirdly, though Republicans recently had a short stint in control, Democrats have in fact held control of the leadership of our nation for the very large majority of the last 50 years. Much of what we experience as "our government" is the what it has become over a fairly long period, not what has happened in the current administration. I think you are responding to your personal dissatisfaction with our current President and attributing it to our entire government. I do, however, agree with your core point that it is a problem shared by both sides. BTW- I am not a Republican either.

For my own education..can you show me some examples of those "long term permanent implications"? I'm not contesting just trying to learn.

The "New Deal" is a good example... previously, it was thought to be unconstitutional for the Federal Government to be involved with welfare, social security, wealth transfer, etc. FDR pushed through a socialist package and essentially forced the Supreme Court to find a way to make it Constitutional, which they did. They had unbelievable unitnended consequences and the Government had been growing almost out of control since then.

The Supreme Court finding a "right to privacy" in the Constitution (where none previously existed) for the right of married couples to use birth control ldirectly ed to Roe V Wade (no matter where you stand on the issue, it's bad law).

More recently, the Supreme Court found that cities could sieze your property to give to corporations which would devleop it and result in more tax revenues.

Mainly it's finding the right for Government to intervene in our lives in ways the Founders never envisioned. If the upcoming Congress has a Dem Supermajority, expect to see similar watershed changes no matter who is President.

Presidents have used signing statement for generations... Bush just took it to a different level. until a cort finds that the signing statement has some sort of legal standing/implication, it's all show. In reality, the "worst" sort of "signing statements" Bush has done (basically saying how the Executitve branch intends to implement the law) are no different from previous Administrations' Exectutive Orders doing the same thing. Same result, different vehicle. Still subject to Justice action. So until a Court finds the signing statement carries some weight, I don't see any sort of legal precedent being set.

This Administration is certainly not "my guys"... and I'm not an apologist for them. (The things they've done are bad enough without the addition of inaccurate charges that they've forever changed the Constitution or Constitutional balance of powers. They may have exceeded them, but they've not changed them.)

My apologies! I was mistaken in reading a team choice into your statements.

I was actually hoping for a Hillary administration. Because I assume a Hillary administration would be a failure and that would be better for the country than a successful McCain or Obama administration. I like Government gridlock. ;-)

I am however, a libertarian student of Constutional law and history...

Pro-legalization then?

Absolutely. And when I say that, people assume I'm a user as well. No interest whatesoever except from a philosopical point of view...

Bill ps... edit... wow some strange quoting I did here... follow the conversation and not the "quotes" ;-)