The Beat

Let the People Lead

posted by John Nichols on 09/17/2006 @ 1:46pm

"... it may, perhaps, on some occasion, be found necessary to impeach the President himself..." -- JAMES MADISON

On Sunday, September 17, I appeared on the National Mall in Washington as part of Camp Democracy's day-long session on impeachment.

Camp Democracy organizer David Swanson's timing was, as always, impeccable.

Though it is too little noted by the current guardians of the American experiment -- and the media guardians of the American discourse -- September 17 is Constitution Day. It was on September 17, 1787, that 39 of the founders signed the U.S. Constitution and took the first formal step on America's journey as a nation of laws rather than men.,

It is possible, and indeed appropriate, to debate the intentions of the founders on a host of issues.

But there can be no debate about their determination that the document guarantee the most necessary of all democratic protections: the power of impeachment.

George Mason, who along with James Madison was a definitional figure in the drafting of the Constitution, put it best when he said of the document's contents: "No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued."

Madison's notes from the summer in which the Constitution was drafted, as well as his letters to Jefferson regarding the product of that summer, leave no doubt that the founders intended for impeachment to be utilized whenever necessary in defense of the Republic. They did not want the power to impach treated as a fetish or a fantasy, nor did they intend for its application to be seen as a Constitutional crisis. Rather, they wanted impeachment to be recognized for what it is: the cure for the crisis of executive excess.

It was Madison's view that impeachment was an "indispensable" provision for defending the American experiment -- and the American people -- "against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." The promise of another election, at which a wrongdoing executive might be removed, was not enough to provide such protection, Madison had warned in his address to the Constitutional Convention that made provision for impeachment. "The imitation of the period of {the president's] service, was not a sufficient security," explained the man who would, himself, serve two full terms as the new nation's fourth president. "{The president} might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers... In the case of the Executive Magistracy which was to be administered by a single man, loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."

Gouverneur Morris, the "gentleman revolutionary" whose pen Madison credited with providing "the finish given to the style and arrangement of the Constitution," was even blunter than his compatriot. Speaking of "the necessity of impeachments," Morris asserted that only the broad power to remove the president -- not merely for corruption and incapacity but for the far more fluidly-defined act of "treachery" -- would provide the essential insurance across time that: "This Magistrate is not the King... The people are the King."

Two hundred and nineteen years after that first September 17, Swanson and the Camp Democracy organizers brought together many of the best thinkers in the nation to discuss the question of how best to maintain the mandate of the Constitution. Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega, former Kennedy administration aide Marcus Raskin, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern were present, along with former U.S. Representative Elizabeth Holtzman, the co-author of The Case for Impeachment, and Constitutional scholar David Lindorff, the co-author of The Impeachment of George W. Bush. Activists such as Michael Avery, the president of the National Lawyers Guild; Dan DeWalt, the Vermont selectman who began the grassroots movement to pass local impeachment resolution and veteran political operative Steve Cobble showed up to talk strategy.

There was little debate about whether George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their compatriots have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" -- the deliberately broad term for executive wrongdoing that the founders intended to address both legal and political concerns. There was a good deal of frustration with the failure of Democratic leaders to accept the responsibility of the opposition party to hold out-of-control leaders to account. But there was, as well, a dawning recognition that the discussion about impeachment will be had -- if not as quickly or as well as should be in Washington, then surely in the great expanses of these United States.

Polls and practices suggest that the citizenry well understands the necessity of holding this administration to account -- not to punish Bush or Cheney but to restore the system of checks and balances that has been so warped in this era of executive whim and lawlessness. And 219 years into this American experiment, as we honor the Constitution that is its foundation, the message from Camp Democracy is clear: It is time to remind the politicians and the pundits that: "This Magistrate is not the King... The people are the King."

***

* For more on Camp Democracy, visit the website at: http://www.campdemocracy.org/

* John Nichols' new book, The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism (The New Press), will be published in October. Of it, Studs Terkel says: "Never within my nonagenarian memory has the case for impeachment of Bush and his equally crooked confederates been so clearly and fervently offered as John Nichols has done in this book. They are after all our public SERVANTS who have rifled our savings, bled our young, and challenged our sanity. As Tom Paine said 200 years ago to another George, a royal tramp: "Bugger off!" So should we say today. John Nichols has given us the history, the language and the arguments we will need to do so."

Comments (163)

  1. Violating the first and fourth amendments, "doctoring" the intelligence to create a war, stealing elections, breaching national security by outing undercover operatives and who only knows what else. The wing-nuts call impeachment a radical step of 'bush haters'. Radical steps for radical crimes and traitorous treachery.

    Posted by hmnpwr at 09/17/2006 @ 2:56pm

  2. "Preident Cheney" and no Democratic agenda passed in 2007....

    Boy, they (the pro-impeachers) are REALLY going to show those neo-cons, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 09/17/2006 @ 3:21pm

  3. Posted by MASK 09/17/2006 @ 3:21pm

    what I like about it is no republican agenda passed in 2007

    Posted by Will C. at 09/17/2006 @ 3:28pm

  4. .

    THE PEOPLE REQUIRE THE MEDIA TO SERVE THEM!

    Media ownership study ordered destroyed

    FCC draft suggested fewer owners would hurt local TV coverage

    Updated: 3:08 p.m. ET Sept 14, 2006

    (Note: In June of 2006, the FCC announced the start of a new review of media ownership, including a "series of public hearings on media ownership issues at diverse locations across the nation". That review is still ongoing.)

    'Every last piece' destroyed Adam Candeub, now a law professor at Michigan State University, said senior managers at the agency ordered that "every last piece" of the report be destroyed. "The whole project was just stopped - end of discussion," he said. Candeub was a lawyer in the FCC's Media Bureau at the time the report was written and communicated frequently with its authors, he said.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14836500/

    "You can't tell any more the difference between what's propaganda and what's news."

    FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein 15 August, 2006

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/16/national/main1900602.shtm

    On ABC's Nightline, Monday, August 14, former hostage Jill Carroll recounted how the Iraqi insurgency was "like a family affair… what are you gonna do, arrest them all, kill them all?"

    At that moment over on C-SPAN, President Bush, in the State Department's Treaty Room, was giving the answer:

    Yes.

    In the very next segment on C-SPAN, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu each delivered their own declarations of war in the Knesset. All three leaders, in the US and in Israel, pointed to Syria and Iran as the new front in the "war on terror."

    This during a "cease-fire."

    Did the FCC Report about MEDIA CONTROL reveal that the Zionists control the US Media?

    Is that why a report, funded with your tax dollars, was destroyed?

    DEMAND ANSWERS!

    .

    Posted by plunger at 09/17/2006 @ 3:46pm

  5. .

    Listening to Stephen Hadley attempt to define the law defined by Common Article 3, it now becomes crystal clear why Rumsfeld disbanded Iraq's Standing UNIFORMED Military at the time of our invasion.

    They are attempting to redefine the Geneva Conventions to apply only to those captured "on the battlefield IN UNIFORM."

    Since the "battlefield" is undefined, it is literally EVERYWHERE, and since the enemy is conveniently undefined, it pertains to EVERYONE...including you and me.

    The US and Israel are on a mission to overthrow the middle east - and in so doing, create a CIVILIAN UPRISING of non-uniformed "insurgent" fighters, whom this administration finds it convenient to brand as "Al Qaeda"

    There is no "Al Qaeda Organization."

    "Al Qaeda In Iraq" is a Rovian Brand Strategy - just like "911"

    People who find themselves occupied by a foreign invading force tend to fight back.

    In other wars, our own government has branded them as "Freedom Fighters" when it serves the US Agenda.

    The administration is attempting to create its own reality, based strictly on whether or not those who oppose our invading troops are wearing a uniform.

    Sound anything like the Israeli occupation of Palestine, complete with check points and road blocks?

    Who taught the US Troops torture techniques that would work specifically well on Arab detainees?

    Coincidence?

    .

    Posted by plunger at 09/17/2006 @ 3:47pm

  6. apparently mask doesn't pay much attention to what the democrats are doing, they just unveiled two packages, one of them security-related, in the last 3 weeks.

    we already have "president cheney", anyway. bush isn't qualified to be a president, that's why he listens to cheney and rove.

    that impeachment is even being discussed is testimony to bush's dismal performance as president these last 5 years. in fact, mere discussion is significant enough.

    how many more lies can fall from bush's mouth? did you see his interview with lauer? extraordinary! watching bush is like watching a clown. the man has absolutely no clue.

    put bush in charge of ANY european country, or canada, and he would have been expelled within two months. this country of ours is so incredibly dumb to have elected this man twice.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/17/2006 @ 4:16pm

  7. It is possible, and indeed appropriate, to debate the intentions of the founders on a host of issues.

    Hear hear.

    There was little debate about whether George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their compatriots have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" -- the deliberately broad term for executive wrongdoing that the founders intended to address both legal and political concerns.

    Why not? There aren't any real solid arguments for the war falling under that umbrella, so the best justification is the wiretapping stuff and the prisons. Those might be solid justifications, but that should at least be debated, one would think. In fact, this leads nicely into the first post...

    Violating the first and fourth amendments, "doctoring" the intelligence to create a war, stealing elections, breaching national security by outing undercover operatives and who only knows what else. The wing-nuts call impeachment a radical step of 'bush haters'. Radical steps for radical crimes and traitorous treachery.

    Posted by HMNPWR 09/17/2006 @ 2:56pm

    I'm going to go ahead and deal with these claims one by one. First, there were no violations of the first amendment, unless you're refering to the Times incident, which still isn't a violation of free speech by any stretch of the imagination. Second, the violation of the fourth amendment is probably the strongest argument for impeachment, since it involves a clear overstepping of presidential bounds, but it's still debatable whether that's sufficient justification. Third, the intelligence wasn't "doctored"; the 9/11 Commission, for example, found no indications that Bush knew Iraq wasn't a meaningful threat and didn't have WMD. Fourth, there's no good evidence that Bush stole any elections. His first win, though determined by the Supreme Court, has never been challenged in any credible legal setting. His second win hasn't been either, this amounts to a massive assertion that no legislator will or should take seriously. Fifth, Bush didn't expose Valerie Plame and he didn't order anyone else to do so either, which makes this charge dumb.

    That impeachment is even being discussed is testimony to bush's dismal performance as president these last 5 years.

    Posted by DARLADOON 09/17/2006 @ 4:16pm

    I'm not sure you want to be making that argument, because it would suggest that Clinton's impeachment was also a testimony to dismal performance.

    The problem with the argument, of course, is that it isn't true. The fact that there are some people discussing impeachment isn't a general indication of that President's performance at all; there were some (though very few, thankfully) who advocated impeaching Bush as early as 2002. The displeasure of a radical minority doesn't prove that a President has been doing a bad job.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/17/2006 @ 4:51pm

  8. "found no indications that Bush knew Iraq wasn't a meaningful threat and didn't have WMD"

    why did french and german intelligence officers doubt the case so adamantly?

    "I'm not sure you want to be making that argument, because it would suggest that Clinton's impeachment was also a testimony to dismal performance."

    normally you make good points, thrawn, but not this time. it has absolutely nothing to do with clinton, whose impeachment in any case, had absolutely nothing to do with performance.

    "The displeasure of a radical minority doesn't prove that a President has been doing a bad job."

    and this perhaps worse than the previous point. "radical minority"? you mean, like CNN? like MSNBC? like the NYT? like the nation (certainly not "Radical" and definitely not a "Minority")?

    thrawn, the "mere discussion" of impeachment, as i had called it, involves pointing out all of the egregious violations bush has commited during his tenure.......

    Posted by darladoon at 09/17/2006 @ 5:23pm

  9. Posted by THRAWN 09/17/2006 @ 4:51pm

    I'm going to go ahead and deal with these claims one by one. First, there were no violations of the first amendment, unless you're refering to the Times incident, which still isn't a violation of free speech by any stretch of the imagination.

    The strongest first amendment violation deals with the establishment clause. Chimpy's severe limitations on federal funds for stem cell research solely on the basis of evangelic values or lack of them I should say, not only created the foundation for a defacto state religion but also abrogates his responsibility as a constitutional officer to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

    Second, the violation of the fourth amendment is probably the strongest argument for impeachment, since it involves a clear overstepping of presidential bounds, but it's still debatable whether that's sufficient justification.

    A clear overstepping of the fouth amendment, which by definition is a violation of law, doesn't leave much room for debate if the guy who did the overstepping (law breaking) took an oath to preserve protect and defend the constitution of the United States

    Third, the intelligence wasn't "doctored"; the 9/11 Commission, for example, found no indications that Bush knew Iraq wasn't a meaningful threat and didn't have WMD.

    The 9-11 commission dealt with 9-11 and it found that Iraq and al qaeda had no connections. The investigation into any abuse of power was to be addressed by phase two of the senate investigation on the misuse of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war... and you hamsters aren't pursuing that phase

    Fourth, there's no good evidence that Bush stole any elections. His first win, though determined by the Supreme Court, has never been challenged in any credible legal setting. His second win hasn't been either, this amounts to a massive assertion that no legislator will or should take seriously.

    After a supreme court ruling, there are no other challenges. This renders your statement irrelevant. In his second win the only party that could have raised a challenge, john Kerry, didn't. But should an oversight investigation of either election in the house or senate uncover any wrongdoing... well we'll se if nobody takes it seriously

    Fifth, Bush didn't expose Valerie Plame and he didn't order anyone else to do so either, which makes this charge dumb.

    Sure he did. Chimpy is the commander in chief an as such is responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen in his administration. His administration leaked Valerie Wilson's classified status. Chimpy's responsible.

    Posted by Will C. at 09/17/2006 @ 5:31pm

  10. Darla

    "found no indications that Bush knew Iraq wasn't a meaningful threat and didn't have WMD"

    why did french and german intelligence officers doubt the case so adamantly?

    Well, first of all, as best I can tell, many other intelligence services (including Britain's) pointed in the same direction as ours did, even though they turned about to be wrong. More importantly, though, even if the French and Germans didn't believe our evidence, there's still pretty good reason to believe that Bush did. Their criticism must also be taken with a pretty big grain of salt, given their strong financial interest in keeping Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

    "I'm not sure you want to be making that argument, because it would suggest that Clinton's impeachment was also a testimony to dismal performance."

    normally you make good points, thrawn, but not this time. it has absolutely nothing to do with clinton, whose impeachment in any case, had absolutely nothing to do with performance.

    You're right, Clinton's impeachment didn't really have anything to do with his performance in office. What I was pointing out was that your argument requires us to believe otherwise. Here, again, was the initial claim that you made:

    That impeachment is even being discussed is testimony to bush's dismal performance as president these last 5 years.

    In other words, the discussion of impeachment is sufficient to prove that a President has been doing badly. What I pointed out was that this is a bad argument, and I demonstrated that both by pointing out that the argument itself is incorrect, and that its necessary implications can be recognized as absurd.

    That also answers the point that you made right below it. I didn't make any specific comment about the specific impeachment proceedings that are being discussed now, but rather about the implications of the argument that you made. The mere fact that some people discuss impeachment does not demonstrate that a President has been doing a really bad job; that's all I was trying to show.

    Will

    I'll be honest; I've seen you make good arguments before, but a lot of the arguments in your last post are really bad, with the worst one coming last.

    The strongest first amendment violation deals with the establishment clause. Chimpy's severe limitations on federal funds for stem cell research solely on the basis of evangelic values or lack of them I should say, not only created the foundation for a defacto state religion but also abrogates his responsibility as a constitutional officer to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

    First, on the Establishment Clause violation. What you seem to be arguing is that the stem cell legislation was motivated by religiously-derived values, and that this makes the legislation a violation of the Establishment Clause. If that's your argument (and please tell me if it isn't), it makes no sense. By that logic, if the Senators and Representatives banned murder based on their religious convictions, that would be a violation of the Establishment Clause; obviously it wouldn't, which illustrates how bad of a standard this is.

    The question of establishment isn't based on your motivations, it's based on the actual outcome. Otherwise, the idea of "establishment" means absolutely nothing, and would require religious convictions to have no relevance towards the way someone votes.

    The last brief claim you make, about "securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" is really strange; I'm pretty sure that critique could apply to any President that you don't like, and thus means nothing. At the very least, it's not a standard that has any legal meaning.

    A clear overstepping of the fouth amendment, which by definition is a violation of law, doesn't leave much room for debate if the guy who did the overstepping (law breaking) took an oath to preserve protect and defend the constitution of the United States

    If this logic actually holds, the Republican Congress after the Civil War should have impeached Lincoln. Why? He violated numerous provisions of the Constitution; he suspended habeas corpus, created military tribunals, etc. The Court ruled that his actions were clearly unconstitutional, but I doubt that many would actually argue that he should be impeached. So no, the existence of a constitutional violation isn't in and of itself enough to justify impeachment.

    The 9-11 commission dealt with 9-11 and it found that Iraq and al qaeda had no connections. The investigation into any abuse of power was to be addressed by phase two of the senate investigation on the misuse of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war... and you hamsters aren't pursuing that phase

    The question of what Bush knew isn't necessarily a question of power abuse, per se. It falls under the heading of the 9/11 Comission as well, particularly given that it involves the question of what Bush knew about Iraq and al-Qaeda. More importantly, though, there isn't any official proof that Bush knew Iraq to not be a threat. Until you have evidence of that nature, these claims are groundless.

    After a supreme court ruling, there are no other challenges. This renders your statement irrelevant. In his second win the only party that could have raised a challenge, john Kerry, didn't. But should an oversight investigation of either election in the house or senate uncover any wrongdoing... well we'll se if nobody takes it seriously

    So again, your argument becomes "well, just wait and see what an investigation proves." Given that, you should probably not make assertions like these until the investigation, because all you're doing is just throwing accusations without any substance behind them.

    Fifth, Bush didn't expose Valerie Plame and he didn't order anyone else to do so either, which makes this charge dumb.

    Sure he did. Chimpy is the commander in chief an as such is responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen in his administration. His administration leaked Valerie Wilson's classified status. Chimpy's responsible.

    Ummm...no. If Bush tells Rumsfeld to do something and Rumsfeld doesn't do it, Rumsfeld's responsible, not Bush. The fact that he is Commander-in-Chief does not mean that he has responsibility for every single action that every single person under him takes. The only standard that makes sense is for him to be accountable for the actions that he authorizes. He certainly isn't legally accountable to the extent that he could impeached for actions in his administration that he had no control over.

    Also, it's not like the Administration deliberately leaked Valerie Wilson's name; Armitage didn't go "all right, this Joe Wilson guy is being a problem, let's take him down!"

    What this shows is that there is an important debate that still needs to be had. Though many of the arguments made have been really silly, some of them deserve serious consideration, and reflection into what it really means to be guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors." The original understanding of this phrase will be key, of course, and we'll need to determine how well that understanding can be applied to this particular case.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/17/2006 @ 6:47pm

  11. The Republican Party should change it's name to the De-Constitution Party. In any case the Republican Party is the authentically un-American party.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/17/2006 @ 7:12pm

  12. apparently mask doesn't pay much attention to what the democrats are doing, they just unveiled two packages, one of them security-related, in the last 3 weeks.

    Posted by DARLADOON 09/17/2006 @ 4:16pm

    Focus on Bush's impeachment (and Cheney's too, I guess...or what's the point)......and they'll pass NONE of it.

    And lose 2008, when they realize that though 60% of America didn't like Bush's job performance.....only 20% wanted his head on a platter...you and a few friends.

    Posted by Mask at 09/17/2006 @ 7:27pm

  13. RawStory features a good Keith Olberman interview on what might be part of the reason he is pushing legislation which would "clarify" Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions: to save his sorry butt, not from impeachment, but indictment for war crimes. Impeachment doesn't really come up in the interview, but war crimes certainly does.

    http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Bush_rants_at_reporters_in_0916. html

    David Corn's 2002 article examining the then current "conspiracy theories", "The 9/11 X-Files" solicited numerous letters. His reponse to those letters concludes with this:

    "September 11 was a day of unprecedented horror. It is not surprising that many people seek a deeper understanding of the attack and what led to it. Official answers ought not to be absorbed automatically without questions. But the purveyors of contrary explanations have a high bar to clear--particularly when they claim to possess an unseen truth--for, in the end, the only alternatives that should matter are those that are demonstrably true."

    As far as some other good reasons for impeachment, and to point out that "contrary explanations" have come a long way since his 2002 article consider this:

    The first is an article detailing the existence of what was known as "Operation Northwoods," declassified military documents describing US military plans in 1962 to conduct a terrorist operation against US citizens, in which US citizens would be killed, in an effort to gather support for an invasion of Cuba, our communist enemy.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060907/bs_prweb/prweb434292_2

    The second link is to an article that addresses questions that have been raised about why NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, and the FAA were confused about the events that were taking place on 9/11. As planes were actually flying into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, a military exercise was being conducted in which hypothetical planes were being flown into buildings. The resulting confusion prevented the military from addressing what was actually happening. The article asks the question, who planned an exercise like that for that very day? It calls for an investigation into how such a thing happened.

    http://www.govinfo.bnet-newmedia.co.uk/opinions_Articles.php?IDVal=50

    This last link poses 40 significant and unanswered questions concerning the 9/11 attacks, that contradict the findings of the government's 9/11 Commission.

    http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

    Posted by sdemetri at 09/17/2006 @ 7:42pm

  14. The Republican Party should change it's name to the De-Constitution Party. In any case the Republican Party is the authentically un-American party.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/17/2006 @ 7:12pm

    I did not know that. You know, one of these days, I should call up John McCain and tell him just how un-American he really is...

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/17/2006 @ 11:07pm

  15. Focus on Bush's impeachment (and Cheney's too, I guess...or what's the point)......and they'll pass NONE of it.

    And lose 2008, when they realize that though 60% of America didn't like Bush's job performance.....only 20% wanted his head on a platter...you and a few friends.

    Posted by MASK 09/17/2006 @ 7:27pm

    Additional items off MASK's platter:

    End the fight to end world hunger (Pie is not in the sky, no matter what the flavor).

    End the effort to spread democracy (Diebold will never figure out how to cock up Arab language ballots).

    End the effort to ensure human rights throughout this country and the rest of the world (as long as we keep justice on the low down, those who suffer won't know how bad they's got it).

    These and hundreds of other efforts need to be halted immediately until we can define them in politically and economically feasible terms. MASKian theory has taught us that anything remotely impractical is pure folly. So, let us all sit back and settle for whatever our elected government inflicts on us. We deserve it and mustn't do a thing to let those in power know we are paying attention to little ol' things like illegal behavior. They know best and will reward us if we let well enough alone.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/17/2006 @ 11:38pm

  16. I should call up John McCain and tell him just how un-American he really is...

    Posted by THRAWN 09/17/2006 @ 11:07pm

    As I understand it, he is still supporting an abolition of habeas corpus for detainees. Seems pretty un-American to me.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/17/2006 @ 11:44pm

  17. Posted by THRAWN 09/17/2006 @ 6:47pm

    First, on the Establishment Clause violation. What you seem to be arguing is that the stem cell legislation was motivated by religiously-derived values, and that this makes the legislation a violation of the Establishment Clause. If that's your argument (and please tell me if it isn't), it makes no sense. By that logic, if the Senators and Representatives banned murder based on their religious convictions, that would be a violation of the Establishment Clause; obviously it wouldn't, which illustrates how bad of a standard this is.

    When laws are passed or executive orders put forward solely on religious dogma, they are a violation to establishment clause. You're bringing up murder is dishonest as usual. The disruption of the family, pain, suffering, the loss of valued members of the community and safety in our homes and persons are all reasons to pass laws against murder that have nothing to do with thou shalt not kill.

    The reason given for the restrictions on stem cell research was purely moral which is to say it was purely religious and we are a country founded on the freedom of religion and not state imposed religion... the defacto thing I was talking about.

    The question of establishment isn't based on your motivations, it's based on the actual outcome. Otherwise, the idea of "establishment" means absolutely nothing, and would require religious convictions to have no relevance towards the way someone votes. .

    The actual outcome is that stem cell research was severely limited for purely religious dogma which in fact is denying those of us who don't share their dogma the benefits of treatments that stem cells could provide. And your reasoning in this paragraph is nonsensical

    The last brief claim you make, about "securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" is really strange; I'm pretty sure that critique could apply to any President that you don't like, and thus means nothing. At the very least, it's not a standard that has any legal meaning.

    The clause is one of the stated purposes o governments of the people. Anyone who takes the presidential oath is bound to fulfill that purpose. Willfully keeping those in pain and suffering because of your own personal religious dogmas is not only a violation of the first amendment but also a betrayal of the purpose of the framers

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 12:28am

  18. The question of what Bush knew isn't necessarily a question of power abuse, per se. It falls under the heading of the 9/11 Comission as well, particularly given that it involves the question of what Bush knew about Iraq and al-Qaeda. More importantly, though, there isn't any official proof that Bush knew Iraq to not be a threat. Until you have evidence of that nature, these claims are groundless.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/17/2006 @ 6:47pm

    No that's not what you said. You said this...

    Third, the intelligence wasn't "doctored"; the 9/11 Commission, for example, found no indications that Bush knew Iraq wasn't a meaningful threat and didn't have WMD.

    Once again, dishonest of you... a usual. The 9-11 commission only dealt with claims of connections between al qaeda and Iraq. They didn't delve into wmd, mushroom clouds or any of the other hysteria you hamsters used to get us into war.

    And as to your assertion that bush didn't know that Iraq was a treat, it's dishonest of you again… as usual. The phase two senate investigation into abuses o intelligence never happened. You hamsters won't let it happen

    Perhaps you have something to hide?

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 12:39am

  19. So again, your argument becomes "well, just wait and see what an investigation proves." Given that, you should probably not make assertions like these until the investigation, because all you're doing is just throwing accusations without any substance behind them.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/17/2006 @ 6:47pm

    that's what we do in this country, we investigate allegations and then move on the information the investigstion uncovers... as opposed to jumping to conclusions... which you did by saying...

    this amounts to a massive assertion that no legislator will or should take seriously.

    before any oversight investigatons occur

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 12:45am

  20. Ummm...no. If Bush tells Rumsfeld to do something and Rumsfeld doesn't do it, Rumsfeld's responsible, not Bush. The fact that he is Commander-in-Chief does not mean that he has responsibility for every single action that every single person under him takes. The only standard that makes sense is for him to be accountable for the actions that he authorizes. He certainly isn't legally accountable to the extent that he could impeached for actions in his administration that he had no control over.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/17/2006 @ 6:47pm

    ummmm... yes.. the captain of every navy ship will be relived of command if his ship runs aground regardles of whether he was at the wheel or in the bunk. He is responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen in his command. The president as commander in cheif is no different from that navy captain and must be held to the same standard. At the very least to give a warning to future CINC's that if they fuck with the national security of the United States as part of some petty political act of revenge... they are toast

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 12:53am

  21. Also, it's not like the Administration deliberately leaked Valerie Wilson's name; Armitage didn't go "all right, this Joe Wilson guy is being a problem, let's take him down!"

    Posted by THRAWN 09/17/2006 @ 6:47pm

    Sure they did. The administration circulated one or more memos containing Valerie Wilson's identify around the administration, but did so without a classification stamped on top of the memos.

    That stamp would have prevented any administration member from talking about the memo to a reporter.

    and would have put them in legal jeopardy of the law if they did release the information

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 01:00am

  22. Where did detainees obtain that right? SCOTUS was certainly incorrect in Rasul v Bush (03-334). That badly flawed decision was so beautifully ridiculed by Justice Scalia (joined by Rehnquist and Thomas). It is sufficient to note his concluding remarks.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/18/2006 @ 12:54am

    Luvvy... from the Supreme Court. You know, that coequal branch of government tasked with deciding questions like this.

    And dummy, it really doesn't matter what the dissenting judges think.

    Their opinion is just a bunch of screaming in the wind.

    (But please feel free to cling to your fantasy life…It's kind a funny)

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 01:04am

  23. Posted by MASK 09/17/2006 @ 3:21pm

    Don't you think that if hsuB gets investigated that Cheney wouldn't also be implicated and thus also be impeached? And what about the scenario where hsuB admin sees the writing on the wall-- Cheney resigns-- hsuB puts forward whomever the great GOP/MIC repub new cons preselected for him to take over in 2008 as his next VP... In any case recall what restraints were created so that the exec wouldn't abuse power like Nixon again-- don't you think who ever takes over for hsuB will be more seriously oversighted and restrained and unable of getting the US into more shit? Essentially shifting power over to the congress? More minds on security than a block leading to another 9/11 if we don't give the exec unimpeded power-- that's the alternative folks.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/17/2006 @ 10:47am

    And then Carter won. Didn't he want us to resolve the oil situation, but then Reagan got the Iranians to hold the hostages 'til he got in and here we are again-- THANKS GOP/MIC NEW,ER CONS.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/18/2006 @ 02:05am

  24. I should call up John McCain and tell him just how un-American e really is...

    Posted by THRAWN 09/17/2006 @ 11:07pm

    That won't be necessary. It doesn't take one to know one.

    But, thanks for at least trying to be useful.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/18/2006 @ 02:08am

  25. I think I forgot to post this. This, in itself, is enough to justify the impeachment of Bush:

    O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .

    Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.

    The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2 - year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors. Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation, which sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people, according to many people who participated in the reconstruction effort.

    http://tinyurl.com/eoukf

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/18/2006 @ 02:10am

  26. ever since aaron burr, there have been folks in this country attempting to subvert our constitution and undermine our democratic traditions for their own benefit as well as their ideology. scary that these types are currently in power. obverse democratic fascism (i.e. neoconservatism), wake up america!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2006 @ 07:35am

  27. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/17/2006 @ 11:44pm

    Where did detainees obtain that right? SCOTUS was certainly incorrect in Rasul v Bush (03-334). That badly flawed decision was so beautifully ridiculed by Justice Scalia...

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/18/2006 @ 12:54am

    I realize many like you have for years bowed to Scalia's peculiarly self-centered opinions (I blame his parents, of course, for not providing him with the positive reinforcement he needed and for not encouraging him to play with others) and have already envisioned a re-ordering of the Table of Saints for his anointing of our current leader. But the rest of us do not sit at his feet waiting for his next utterance as if the voice of a burning bush or his next writing as if presented to us by Moses. At most, his opinion is worth only 11% of the attention we pay to the Court, even as he does his darnedest to make certain the three branches of government maintain a perfect balance of imbecility.

    If you listen to Scalia's dissents, I will force you to start attending Conyers's basement hearings and any rally Nichols plans to participate in.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/18/2006 @ 07:57am

  28. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/17/2006 @ 11:38pm

    Wow....you mean impeaching Bush is on a par with "ending world hunger"?

    (shows how truly obsessed with the guy some people are!)

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2006 @ 08:46am

  29. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/18/2006 @ 02:05am

    As noted on the PREVIOUS article on impeachment....to "simultaneously impeach" both Bush and Cheney, and thereby make Speaker Nancy Pelosi the President....would surely face a Constitutional challenge on the Line of Sucession and the 22nd Amendment....basically because the person leading the impeachment (Pelosi) would be the beneficiary of the process.

    And I'm sure Chief Justice John Roberts (hmmm...WHO appointed him?)...along with Sam Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and likely Souter and possibly Kennedy....wouldn't go for it.

    If impeachment is the leftist guy's fantasy of a three-way with Charlize Theron and Elisha Cuthbert...."double impeachment" is a four-way with Charlize, Elisha, and Jessica Alba....hehe

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2006 @ 08:51am

  30. Posted by MASK 09/18/2006 @ 08:46am

    Some holes are Par 3's. Some are 5's. Same course. Different challenges and obstacles.

    Rather than impeachment, I think we need to Gray Davis the som-bitch and elect Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins as co-presidents just to see if they could do any worse.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/18/2006 @ 08:53am

  31. The question should not be "Is it politically feasible to impeach Bush?" - it should be "Is it morally reprehensible not to impeach Bush?"

    Democrats (and Republicans for that matter) who shy away from their mandated responsibility to act as a check and balance should be impeached through the ballot box. But there are a lot of things that "should be" that probably won't - neocon Bush buttboys ever admitting that Bush and his cronies ever made a mistake (wacko's like Todd claiming that he berates Bush for not bombing more countries only counts for over the top hamster humor); Mask ever making a point that isn't just for a cynical laugh or a rhetorical stick in the eye; oh, the list goes on and on...

    Posted by Turk33 at 09/18/2006 @ 09:05am

  32. Mask -

    I am posting here to voice MY opinion. I could care less what Pelosi and Reid think is best. Or what the Supreme Court may decide. I am also not sure you are right. If the grounds are there and the right process is followed, the mere argument that one party would assume power over another is not enough. Under your reasoning, there is NOTHING a Pres. and VP could do to get impeached if a Democrat is Speaker.

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2006 @ 09:30am

  33. HMAN, TURK, TJ....whoever.

    Aside from ONE Zogby poll from a year ago...is there any desire of the American people to see Bush and/or Cheney impeached?

    "Oh, there WILL be when they see what is revealed in the hearings!".....again, okay....so there's something "new" that the American people haven't heard about that will be exposed in a hearing that will get 2 minutes on The Katie Couric Show or Wolf Blitzer's Simulation Room?.....NSA spied MORE? Less than ZERO WMDs in Iraq? Bush met with Abramoff 55 times, not just the 50?

    Oooh...oooh....how about "Plame-gate" again?....Read somewhere about some new book called "Hubris" that will "blow the lid off of everything".... (wish I could find a link or some more info on that somewhere?!??!).

    Speaking of polls, latest Harris has Bush garnering a "fair" to "good" to "excellent" job rating with a total of 62% 38% say "poor".

    Sounds like the makings of 1999 all over again,huh?

    There is one sure test for how obsessed about this you are....Accept (if for a moment) that impeaching Bush and Cheney will backfire on the Democrats in 2008 (as well as keep them totally occupied for 2007-2008 and passing no legislation)....

    Is it worth losing Congress again to the Republicans to you, if it means "throwing out Bush and Cheney"? Again, just play along with the premise.

    Because if you say "yes...even if it hurts the Dems in 2008 and costs them Congress, to show the rule of law to the world" (or whatever).....you're obsessed and you're trapped in what I call the "cult of anti-personality" (Google: Stalin, etc) and ALL that matters to you is George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney and what happens to them, to satisfy YOUR sense of justice...

    which makes you absolutely NO DIFFERENT than the Clinton-obsessed Right in the 1990s....and I got a copy of Jerry Falwell's "Clinton Chronicles" VHS that I'll sell ya real cheap, before I put it on Ebay.

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2006 @ 09:45am

  34. Guys? Guys!

    MASK says to keep it down. He's resting after a long period of letting the current take him where it might. Before that he was fluttering in the breeze. And before that he was resting.

    So, you crazy kids, keep quiet or he'll call your parents.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/18/2006 @ 10:02am

  35. Mask -

    Yes, an official investigation into bringing articles of impeachment with full subpoena power will not carry more momentum. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Funny, you have consistently minimized things like Conyers' "basement" hearings, afterdowningstreet.org and David's book, yet NOW make it seem as if those same outlets have delivered the message as effectively as an actual Congressional investigation would.

    And labeling me obsessed is a clever way to dismiss my opinion, but it is hardly true. You can call me any names you like. I believe Bush and Cheney have defrauded the United States and have failed to uphold their consttituional oaths. I do not hate the men - I object to their acts. Forgive me for voicing my sense of justice. Tellingly, you dismiss the rule of law and what I think was a fraud perpetrated on our nation as "whatever."

    I take it more seriously than that.

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2006 @ 10:05am

  36. Mask,

    It has nothing to do with obsession, as you wish it did. It's about holding those in power accountable for their actions. And again, political feasibility should not be of any concern, even though that is the only concern with most of the elected officials.

    And how Ken Starr's witch hunt can even be brought up in the same breath is evidence of a lack of intelligent thought. The Republican's glee was evident that they could tie up the government and keep Clinton's focus on his defense of non-charge after non-charge (instead of paying attention to actual business of government). The Democrats are obviously thinking your cynical thoughts and consider any impeachment discussion as political suicide. That doesn't mean that it is wrong or farcical. Harry Truman, when contemplating de-segregating the armed forces (a decision that was equally momentous, morally necessary, and politically perilous), said something like "If this decision costs me the election, I will have lost doing the right thing." Words that some of our current Democrats might want to consider.

    Posted by Turk33 at 09/18/2006 @ 10:09am

  37. And "no different" than the Clinton-haters? What a joke. Do you think the MERITS of a case for impeachment might be just a tad different here? I'll put misrepresentation, deceit, and fraud in the context of an almost trillion dollar war killing thousands and damaging our standing in the world and making us less safe against a private civil suit based on sexual harrasment any day.

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2006 @ 10:09am

  38. Ignore list MASK. He's here to waste your time and energy.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/18/2006 @ 10:33am

  39. Shared sacrifice and suffering have been endured by generations before us. Those generations' willingness to accept their responsibilities has strengthened our society, country, freedom and constitution.

    The sacrifice, neigh, the suffering for this generation is to endure two years of President Chenney to restore the rule of law and and re-energize accountability in the Executive Branch of the United States of America.

    Will two years of President Chenney be a terrible burden to endure? Yes. Will our generation be able to endure the suffering?

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/18/2006 @ 10:35am

  40. Mask you are wrong about these pro-impeachment types here being no different than the Clinton haters.

    These folks are worse since they also hate America (all while falsely professing to lover her).

    Ring!Ring ring!

    Hello?

    Is this the pot?

    Yes it is.

    This is the kettle - you're black!

    Who hates America more - those who are willing to go along with illegal proceedings by the administration, rationalizing the lengths to which the commando-in-chief will go to further his own sick agenda, and attacking those who's American rights and responsibilities require the questioning of the adminstration? Or those who feel such a love for America that they are willing to put up with the vicious slander, lies and spin by the right wing scumbags who due to a lack of self esteem or ignorance or greed keep lining up with those who seem far too willing to attack and weaken the document which makes America great?

    I believe in upholding the Constitution! I think the Armed Forces should be honored by only subjecting them to necessary dangers! I think it is the responsibility of those in power and those who elect them to expect that our government will do the best for their constituents, regardless of their campaign contributions.

    LvLiberty1, I know people who love liberty, I myself love liberty, and you sir have shown absolutely no indication that you have any understanding what liberty even means, much less shown any indication that you love anything other than your own agenda. You babble and spin and try to make yourself and your leaders out to be super patriots. Shame on you! Your moniker ought to be lvpower1. You're willing blindness and the vile filth that you spill because of it is a disgrace.

    Posted by Turk33 at 09/18/2006 @ 10:45am

  41. Turk,

    Do you have anything to do with a great radio program that airs on Sirius?

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/18/2006 @ 10:51am

  42. I love America. Go fuck yourself Liberty.

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2006 @ 10:57am

  43. "The strongest first amendment violation deals with the establishment clause. Chimpy's severe limitations on federal funds for stem cell research solely on the basis of evangelic values or lack of them I should say, not only created the foundation for a defacto state religion but also abrogates his responsibility as a constitutional officer to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. "

    Will C...

    HOW exactly does that establish a national religion? All it says is that Federal tax dollars are not going to that particular line of research. There is NOTHING that prohibits private companies from doing so. Meaning people are free to CHOOSE. If you want your money going to that research, you can send the private companies a check. If you do not want your money going to this line of research you don't send them money. Plain and simple.

    Posted by John B at 09/18/2006 @ 11:14am

  44. At this point, I think more so than "Hubris"....David Corn and "The Nation" would make a TON of money with a DVD (gotta keep updated on the technology) called "The Bush Chronicles"...

    could have EVERYTHING in it....not just the NSA spying, no Iraqi WMDs, and the Texas Air Guard stuff, but how Cheney helped the Mossad plant their thermite charges in the WTC....Laura "killing a guy with her car"..."Prescott was a Nazi sympathizer"....the whole smash.

    Make a fortune!

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2006 @ 11:16am

  45. "Sure he did. Chimpy is the commander in chief an as such is responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen in his administration. His administration leaked Valerie Wilson's classified status. Chimpy's responsible. "

    Will C...

    That is a completely bogus argument. That would be like saying a Principal should be charged for sexually assaulting a minor every time a teacher does.

    Posted by John B at 09/18/2006 @ 11:21am

  46. "The actual outcome is that stem cell research was severely limited for purely religious dogma which in fact is denying those of us who don't share their dogma the benefits of treatments that stem cells could provide. And your reasoning in this paragraph is nonsensical"

    Will C... again, completely wrong.

    1) You need to make the distinction that the Federal government will not fund EMBYRONIC stem cell research. The Fed does fund other lines of stem cell research.

    2) Number 1 aside, the argument is still wrong as the decision in NO way limits private funding of embryonic stem cell research. Thus, you and I and all those who think embryonic stem cell research is a good idea can contribute as much as we want to that line. There are NO limits.

    Posted by John B at 09/18/2006 @ 11:30am

  47. ummmm... yes.. the captain of every navy ship will be relived of command if his ship runs aground regardles of whether he was at the wheel or in the bunk. He is responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen in his command. The president as commander in cheif is no different from that navy captain and must be held to the same standard. At the very least to give a warning to future CINC's that if they fuck with the national security of the United States as part of some petty political act of revenge... they are toast

    Posted by WILL C. 09/18/2006

    True, the Captain is held accountable if his ship runs aground. But if his first officer beats the hell out of the helmsman, the first officer is charged...NOT the Captain. The Captain you see is not held accountable for each and every action taken by the members of his/her crew.

    Posted by John B at 09/18/2006 @ 11:34am

  48. True, the Captain is held accountable if his ship runs aground. But if his first officer beats the hell out of the helmsman, the first officer is charged...NOT the Captain. The Captain you see is not held accountable for each and every action taken by the members of his/her crew.

    Posted by JOHN B 09/18/2006 @ 11:34am

    Yes, but the captain will be held accountable if the captain, upon learning about the incident, refuses to hold the first officer accountable and/or helps the first officer cover up the incident. Hmmmm, what does this sound like? Can't quite put my finger on it...it'll come to me.

    Posted by Turk33 at 09/18/2006 @ 11:52am

  49. I've changed my mind....

    if the Dems win the House, and then go for impeachment (especially the "Penthouse Forum" letter version of "simultaneous impeachment of Bush and Cheney).....I say go for it.

    Getting slapped down in 2008 for being JUST AS STUPID as the Repubs were in 1999, for listening to their rabid President-hating base, would be a good object lesson for them.

    So...say it with me..."Dubya Gone In '07"!!!! (wonder if I can copyright that for the bumper sticker sales?)

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2006 @ 12:00pm

  50. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 09/18/2006 @ 10:51am

    Great Sirius program? Me? Besides being completely pleased that I could be mistaken for a "great" Sirius commentator, I have to claim complete ignorance (on this topic, at this time, for the record). I don't even have Sirius, or any satellite radio (although I must say now I am intrigued!)

    Posted by Turk33 at 09/18/2006 @ 12:01pm

  51. Yes, but the captain will be held accountable if the captain, upon learning about the incident, refuses to hold the first officer accountable and/or helps the first officer cover up the incident. Hmmmm, what does this sound like? Can't quite put my finger on it...it'll come to me.

    Posted by TURK33 09/18/2006

    Good point...and very true. However, you will find that there WAS an investigation into the leak. Thus, had Fitgerald found enough evidence to indict, he would have. Follow that line by saying had he indicted, there would have been a trial. So Bush cannot be held accountable as he did not cover up the incident nor did he prevent an investigation into the matter.

    Posted by John B at 09/18/2006 @ 12:03pm

  52. I must have missed something Mask. Did the Democrats regain control of Congress in 2000? Win the White House?

    Exactly WHAT qualifies as a slap down?

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2006 @ 12:06pm

  53. Turk,

    There is a Progressive Talk Show daily at 6PM EST on Sirius called "The Young Turks". One of the co-hosts was born in Turkey. I don't listen to much progressive talk radio, but this happens to be the best show of the genre in my opinion so I listen to it in the car once in a while.

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/18/2006 @ 12:15pm

  54. Posted by TURK33 09/18/2006 @ 12:01am

    There is a show called the Young Turks on Sirius. Channel 143. Forget the exact time, but something like 4-7pm or 5-8pm (mountain time). They are pretty good & funny. Lean to the left, but not too hard.

    Posted by John B at 09/18/2006 @ 12:17pm

  55. Hman,

    Even if Mask was correct in thinking that the American people would hold its politicians feet to the fire for being the party of the constitution, frankly, I wouldn't care, and neither would most thoughtful people.

    I'll trade accountability at all levels of government for the price of a Democratic Party dynasty ANY DAY.

    The fact that Mask wouldn't speaks volumes about our Macivallian friend.

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/18/2006 @ 12:20pm

  56. Will

    When laws are passed or executive orders put forward solely on religious dogma, they are a violation to establishment clause. You're bringing up murder is dishonest as usual. The disruption of the family, pain, suffering, the loss of valued members of the community and safety in our homes and persons are all reasons to pass laws against murder that have nothing to do with thou shalt not kill.

    Yes, these are other reasons to ban murder, but there's a crucial distinction between possible justifications for something and your actual reasons for doing something. Banning murder, as you point out, can be justified based on the harm it does to society, the suffering it causes, and so on. However, the legislators who act to ban it might ban it for religious reasons, even though other justifications exist. If your argument is true, that the motivation of the legislators is a standard for Establishment Clause violation, then a law against murder that was passed for religious reasons is unconstitutional.

    As I argued before, there's a reason that this doesn't make sense; it fundamentally misconstrues what the Establishment Clause means. It was designed to prevent the state from imposing a particular religion, or maybe even religion in general, on the population. As such, it's a question of outcomes, not of motivations. This means that it doesn't matter what those legislators' motives were when they passed the stem cell law; the only relevant question is what the law does.

    An easy way to prove that it's not a violation of the Establishment Clause is to ask whether it can be justified on non-religious grounds, and the answer is clearly yes. An individual who isn't religious can still affirm the fundamental dignity of human beings, and can still argue that life begins at a fairly early stage. Even if you disagree with that position (as many reasonable people do), the fact that this law could be justified without any religious premise whatsoever means that it's clearly not unconstitutional.

    Anyone who takes the presidential oath is bound to fulfill that purpose. Willfully keeping those in pain and suffering because of your own personal religious dogmas is not only a violation of the first amendment but also a betrayal of the purpose of the framers

    That's a nice strawman, but it doesn't capture the realities involved in this situation. I personally disagree with the stem cell law, precisely because I don't like the balance that it strikes, but that doesn't make the law unconstitutional. Since this kind of determination will vary based on philosophical preferences that people can and do reasonably disagree about, it's certainly not any kind of legally significant standard, because that would be dumb.

    No that's not what you said. You said this...

    Third, the intelligence wasn't "doctored"; the 9/11 Commission, for example, found no indications that Bush knew Iraq wasn't a meaningful threat and didn't have WMD.

    Once again, dishonest of you... a usual. The 9-11 commission only dealt with claims of connections between al qaeda and Iraq. They didn't delve into wmd, mushroom clouds or any of the other hysteria you hamsters used to get us into war.

    The problem with this is that your argument still doesn't work. Even if they were only interested in information about al Qaeda, they still found no reason to believe that Bush made up information about al Qaeda's connection to Saddam Hussein. More importantly, though, I don't know of any reliable source that has claimed that Bush didn't believe Iraq was a threat, or has even offered an alternative explanation that makes sense.

    that's what we do in this country, we investigate allegations and then move on the information the investigstion uncovers... as opposed to jumping to conclusions... which you did by saying...

    this amounts to a massive assertion that no legislator will or should take seriously.

    before any oversight investigatons occur

    I apologize; I overstated the legitimate conclusion here. The better conclusion here is that until there's actually an investigation that can warrant these claims, they shouldn't be asserted in the way that many are doing now. That means that most of your case for impeachment falls apart because the claims behind it are unsubtantiated.

    the captain of every navy ship will be relived of command if his ship runs aground regardles of whether he was at the wheel or in the bunk. He is responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen in his command. The president as commander in cheif is no different from that navy captain and must be held to the same standard. At the very least to give a warning to future CINC's that if they fuck with the national security of the United States as part of some petty political act of revenge... they are toast

    You're wrong; the President as Commander-in-Chief is substantially different from a navy captain, especially since the President often isn't acting in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief. That's one of the roles he possesses, but that doesn't mean that military standards permeate every action that he takes as President.

    It's certainly no reason to hold a President legally responsible for actions that he had nothing to do with; we don't accept that kind of standard anywhere else in civilian life. If a manager of a business hires somebody, and that person commits a crime while acting in their capacity as an employee of the business, the manager doesn't suddenly become liable or criminally responsible for the action. That's the standard that you'd have to meet here; we impeach the President for "high crimes and misdemeanors," which carries an explicit legal connotation. To say that you can effectively remove the highest official in the land for an action that no other civilian could be held responsible for is absurd.

    Also, the "impeachment as a warning" justification is really bad. First, we don't indict and convict someone for something unless they're guilty; the deterrence justification just doesn't cut it. Second, this justification heinously begs the question; the argument only works if Bush actually leaked Plame's name to start with.

    The administration circulated one or more memos containing Valerie Wilson's identify around the administration, but did so without a classification stamped on top of the memos.

    That stamp would have prevented any administration member from talking about the memo to a reporter.

    and would have put them in legal jeopardy of the law if they did release the information

    First of all, what exactly is your basis for this claim? Who specifically circulated and/or ordered someone to circulate this memo? If the answer to one of the last two questions isn't "George Bush," the argument still doesn't work. There's no evidence to show that Bush was involved in blowing Plame's cover, so it's not anything near an argument for impeachment.

    Like I said, if you're going to defend impeachment, you're going to need to do it on stronger ground (presumably, on issues like the Fourth Amendment violations or the secret prisons). If there is a justification for impeachment, that's where it would come from. Unless some magical evidence emerges for some of your other claims, they aren't good justifications for impeachment.

    Also, like I said before, there are some things (maybe not many, but some) that I will agree with you on. For example, this exchange with Liberty:

    Where did detainees obtain that right? SCOTUS was certainly incorrect in Rasul v Bush (03-334). That badly flawed decision was so beautifully ridiculed by Justice Scalia (joined by Rehnquist and Thomas). It is sufficient to note his concluding remarks.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/18/2006 @ 12:54am

    Luvvy... from the Supreme Court. You know, that coequal branch of government tasked with deciding questions like this.

    And dummy, it really doesn't matter what the dissenting judges think.

    Even though I would argue that the opinions of the dissenting judges can matter in forming later law (see some of O'Connor's dissents in some of Establishment Clause law),you're certainly right that they don't affect current law; the majority decisions do.

    Moreover, the right of habeas corpus does exist, and has existed at least since the Civil War (see the Milligan case). Even if these past decisions are incorrect insofar as they don't match the original understanding of the Constitution and its subsequent amemdments, they're still law.

    Mask

    As noted on the PREVIOUS article on impeachment....to "simultaneously impeach" both Bush and Cheney, and thereby make Speaker Nancy Pelosi the President....would surely face a Constitutional challenge on the Line of Sucession and the 22nd Amendment....basically because the person leading the impeachment (Pelosi) would be the beneficiary of the process.

    Huh? What provision would this be violating?

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/18/2006 @ 12:33pm

  57. Posted by HMAN23 09/18/2006 @ 12:06am

    I'm sorry, HMAN....happy to hear your evidence that "the public LOVED the Republicans for impeaching Clinton" and how it really improved their image and not HIS, post-Februaray 1999.

    BTW....106th Congress (1998-2000) to 107th Congress (2000-2002), they lost two seats. So I guess if the Dems win a THREE seat majority in November..."no big deal"?

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2006 @ 12:36pm

  58. Huh? What provision would this be violating?

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 12:33am

    Error on my part...actually the 25th. It requires the Vice Presidential vacancies to be filled by the President and confirmed by Congress. Before, when a Vice President had succeeded to the Presidency or otherwise left the office empty, the Vice Presidency remained vacant.

    Ergo, if Bush is removed from office (even 1 second before Cheney is), Cheney becoems President and is mandated by the 25th to appoint a new Vice-President.

    Any good Constitutional lawyer on the Right will argue...before JOHN ROBERTS (again)...that if Cheney is removed from office before fulfilling his duty to name a successor (via the 25th), that his removal would be un-Constitutional.

    Then Cheney names Condaleeza Rice his Veep....and the Dems get the "pleasure" of removing Cheney....and making the FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN and FIRST WOMAN (first both of course) President...

    a Republican!

    Now, I'm sure they would do that....and immediately re-name themselves the "Kamikaze Party".

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2006 @ 12:43pm

  59. Mask - YOU are the one always pointing to the GOP disaster or "slap down" in 1999 so I don't it's my burden to show the GOP "was loved."

    So this GOP Blowback of 1999 amounted to a total loss of . . . [drum roll] . . . TWO SEATS!!!

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2006 @ 12:56pm

  60. Mask - YOU are the one always pointing to the GOP disaster or "slap down" in 1999 so I don't think it's my burden to show the GOP "was loved."

    So this GOP Blowback of 1999 amounted to a total loss of . . . [drum roll] . . . TWO SEATS!!!

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2006 @ 12:57pm

  61. Mask -

    Regarding the lines of sucession leading to Rice (a Republican), so what? If that is what happens, so be it. The goal is not to get a Democrat in the White House through this process, it's to hold those who defrauded the United States accountable. In that vein, I am not so sure Rice would be the best choice for Cheney or Bush.

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2006 @ 1:14pm

  62. ANOTHER CRIMINAL ACT: PREMEDITATED FAILURE TO PLAN FOR POST INVASION IRAQ MAELSTROM

    To summarize: the leadership of the United States prevented our entire Military and each and every one of our now dead or disabled troops the benefit of a normal, complete and required invasion plan in order that their hyped story for the public would not be subject to "smoking gun" evidence that they fully knew of the issues embodied in the maelstrom of post invasion Iraq. Thousands of our troops and tens of thousand Iraqis are now dead in the service of deliberate and malicious lies. I can not remotely imagine the searing anger and bitterness a parent might feel if their child was now dead due to this act of calculated incompetence.

    Posted by cognitorex at 09/18/2006 @ 1:25pm

  63. I say we should threaten Bush with impeachment and tell him we're going to replace him with Osama Bin Laden. Maybe then, Bush will do something about Osama Bin Laden. The guy's already enjoyed more than 5 years of freedom after perpetrating the biggest attack on America in our history.

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/18/2006 @ 1:26pm

  64. Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 12:33am

    Yes, these are other reasons to ban murder, but there's a crucial distinction between possible justifications for something and your actual reasons for doing something. Banning murder, as you point out, can be justified based on the harm it does to society, the suffering it causes, and so on. However, the legislators who act to ban it might ban it for religious reasons, even though other justifications exist. If your argument is true, that the motivation of the legislators is a standard for Establishment Clause violation, then a law against murder that was passed for religious reasons is unconstitutional. .

    That's the most retarded argument you have made yet. As long as the secular societal reasons for banning murder exist, there is no conflict with the establishment clause..

    .As I argued before, there's a reason that this doesn't make sense; it fundamentally misconstrues what the Establishment Clause means. It was designed to prevent the state from imposing a particular religion, or maybe even religion in general, on the population. As such, it's a question of outcomes, not of motivations. This means that it doesn't matter what those legislators' motives were when they passed the stem cell law; the only relevant question is what the law does. .

    motivation is everything in this country. It's the difference between self defense and first degree murder. Bush made an executive order limiting stem cell research based solely on religion. And in doing so imposed his dogma on the rest of us. The outcome, as you so like to cling to, is that his religious dogma prevents all of us who don't share in it, the benefits that stem cell research can provide.

    .An easy way to prove that it's not a violation of the Establishment Clause is to ask whether it can be justified on non-religious grounds, and the answer is clearly yes. An individual who isn't religious can still affirm the fundamental dignity of human beings, and can still argue that life begins at a fairly early stage. Even if you disagree with that position (as many reasonable people do), the fact that this law could be justified without any religious premise whatsoever means that it's clearly not unconstitutional. .

    First of all you have to define the fundamental dignity of human beings. Does that mean we don't water board them? Does it mean we don't lock them naked in a conex with a strobe light and a continuous loop tape of Christina Aguilera music as company? Does it mean we don't pile them up naked or force them to simulate homosexual sex acts while pictures are taken? You see the people who oppose stem cell research don't seem to have a real big problem with the actions I just mentioned. That makes your argument is really weak

    And as to the question of when life begins, that question only exists in religion. Science has answered it a long time ago. And at conception wasn't the answer it came up with.

    So you've given me two secular "reasons" to limit or ban federal funding for stem cell research. It doesn't matter what I think of them. What does matter is that neither one of them demonstrate any harm to society or to individuals in that society. None what so ever. Which means you don't have any valid reason for a ban or a limitation on funding?

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 2:07pm

  65. That's a nice strawman, but it doesn't capture the realities involved in this situation. I personally disagree with the stem cell law, precisely because I don't like the balance that it strikes, but that doesn't make the law unconstitutional. Since this kind of determination will vary based on philosophical preferences that people can and do reasonably disagree about, it's certainly not any kind of legally significant standard, because that would be dumb.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 12:33am

    Straw man?

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    You're kidding right? The reality of the situation is that bush is the actual president of the United States who made an executive order limiting stem cell research based on nothing more than his own personal religious convictions. And, people are suffering because of it. That's reality.

    And it not made of straw

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 2:08pm

  66. Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 12:33am

    You're wrong; the President as Commander-in-Chief is substantially different from a navy captain, especially since the President often isn't acting in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief. That's one of the roles he possesses, but that doesn't mean that military standards permeate every action that he takes as President.

    No. I'm correct. National security matters, operations and personal defiantly fall under Chimpy's commander and chief responsibility's

    It's certainly no reason to hold a President legally responsible for actions that he had nothing to do with; we don't accept that kind of standard anywhere else in civilian life. If a manager of a business hires somebody, and that person commits a crime while acting in their capacity as an employee of the business, the manager doesn't suddenly become liable or criminally responsible for the action. That's the standard that you'd have to meet here; we impeach the President for "high crimes and misdemeanors," which carries an explicit legal connotation. To say that you can effectively remove the highest official in the land for an action that no other civilian could be held responsible for is absurd.

    He's not the manager of a business. He's commander in chief. And as such is responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen… everything. The buck stops here right baby?

    Also, the "impeachment as a warning" justification is really bad. First, we don't indict and convict someone for something unless they're guilty; the deterrence justification just doesn't cut it. Second, this justification heinously begs the question; the argument only works if Bush actually leaked Plame's name to start with.

    First, impeachment isn't a conviction. It's a check on executive power. And we don't like our executive playing with the national security of the United States just so he can get some kind of petty political revenge on a detractor. Impeaching him for the Wilson leak is entirely justified. It sends the right message.

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 2:09pm

  67. Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 12:33am

    First of all, what exactly is your basis for this claim? Who specifically circulated and/or ordered someone to circulate this memo? If the answer to one of the last two questions isn't "George Bush," the argument still doesn't work. There's no evidence to show that Bush was involved in blowing Plame's cover, so it's not anything near an argument for impeachment.

    My basis for the claim is the memo that was circulated on the president's trip to Africa that included plames name. It's been reported in the news

    Like I said, if you're going to defend impeachment, you're going to need to do it on stronger ground (presumably, on issues like the Fourth Amendment violations or the secret prisons). If there is a justification for impeachment, that's where it would come from. Unless some magical evidence emerges for some of your other claims, they aren't good justifications for impeachment.

    There are all kinds of reasons we can impeach chimpy. My hope is that the democrats win back a house of congress and after investigating, impeach him for something we don't even know about yet

    Because there has to be lots of stuff we don't know about yet

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 2:11pm

  68. FREEDOM....HMAN.....your "Bush's head, Who Cares What It Does To The Democrats" attitude will likely find FEW takers come 2007.

    Let me quote JOHN NICHOLS....from Friday-

    "But when it came time to vote, the vast majority of Democrats joined Republicans in what will go down as one of the cheapest stunts yet in a Capitol that has seen more than its share of embarrassing behavior.

    Only 22 member of the House refused to go along with the unseemly charade. Twenty-one Democrats and one dissident Republican, Ron Paul of Texas, refused to play politics."

    Yet..."when they win the majority, they're going to show backbone and unity and vote on bills of impeachment against Bush".....right????

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2006 @ 2:22pm

  69. True, the Captain is held accountable if his ship runs aground. But if his first officer beats the hell out of the helmsman, the first officer is charged...NOT the Captain. The Captain you see is not held accountable for each and every action taken by the members of his/her crew.

    Posted by JOHN B 09/18/2006 @ 11:34am

    he is if he doesn't do anything about it. Chimpy hasn't done anything about it.

    (even though he said he would)

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 2:24pm

  70. HOW exactly does that establish a national religion? All it says is that Federal tax dollars are not going to that particular line of research. There is NOTHING that prohibits private companies from doing so. Meaning people are free to CHOOSE. If you want your money going to that research, you can send the private companies a check. If you do not want your money going to this line of research you don't send them money. Plain and simple.

    Posted by JOHN B 09/18/2006 @ 11:14am

    how? His decision creates a set of national standards based solely on religion. Something he's not allowed to do.

    and if you really want to give people a choice, you'll put it up to a vote

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 2:28pm

  71. That is a completely bogus argument. That would be like saying a Principal should be charged for sexually assaulting a minor every time a teacher does.

    Posted by JOHN B 09/18/2006 @ 11:21am

    I really don't think it's like saying that. and the distinction is military... not civilain

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 2:30pm

  72. Yet..."when they win the majority, they're going to show backbone and unity and vote on bills of impeachment against Bush".....right????

    Posted by MASK 09/18/2006 @ 2:22pm

    Like you, I believe that members of both parties will do the politically feasible thing, and impeachment doesn't happen. Unlike you, I believe that impeachment should be the least of Bush's worries, and I think this nation (lowercase) will be worse for the indefensible abrogation of duty I believe will be displayed by both sides of the aisle.

    Posted by Turk33 at 09/18/2006 @ 2:30pm

  73. Mask,

    I don't know where you got the impression that I was talking about what WOULD happen. I'm talking about what SHOULD happen.

    In other words, I have an opinion about what should happen to a President that doesn't uphold his oath to obey the Constitution. You just have an opinion that politicians are spineless.....way to go out on a limb there big boy. Is it scary being 3 inches above the ground?

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/18/2006 @ 2:34pm

  74. Posted by JOHN B 09/18/2006 @ 11:30am

    again, completely wrong.

    1) You need to make the distinction that the Federal government will not fund EMBYRONIC stem cell research. The Fed does fund other lines of stem cell research.

    ok, i'll make the distiction. president placed sever limitaions on federal funding for embyonic stem cell reesaech and di so based solely on his persoanl religious dogma

    2) Number 1 aside, the argument is still wrong as the decision in NO way limits private funding of embryonic stem cell research. Thus, you and I and all those who think embryonic stem cell research is a good idea can contribute as much as we want to that line. There are NO limits.

    I never said he limited private funding did I? which would mean I'm not completely wrong now am I?

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 2:36pm

  75. What they are really attempting to do is to change American politics so that impeachment becomes the standard every time someone they dislike is in office (and that means all Republicans in their eyes).

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/18/2006 @ 2:32pm

    Luvvy

    if that's true you only have yourselves to blame

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 2:38pm

  76. LVL,

    Nothing you've ever written has been worth repeating.

    Why didn't you ever answer why the USA Army shouldn't buy Trophy while waiting the 5-10 years for the Raytheon system to catch up instead of letting guys die for the sake of Raytheon profits?

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/18/2006 @ 2:38pm

  77. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 09/18/2006 @ 2:34pm

    FREEDOM....fine.

    But some of the guys here think it WILL happen under a Democrat-majority Congress next year.

    You can play "could" and "should" all day...but some of these guys are SERIOUS....and they're in for a BIG disappointment come next spring (and I don't mean because they won't get the Dems in the majority).

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2006 @ 2:39pm

  78. Mask,

    And you want to be their party pooper....why?

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/18/2006 @ 2:40pm

  79. Posted by TURK33 09/18/2006 @ 2:30pm

    Like FREEDOM, again....fine, TURK.

    Hard to get through those with B.D.S. ("Bush Dissociative Syndrome"), but an UN-impeached Bush actually fares worse than one who becomes a martyr to "out of control Blog-happy Dems who, first time back in power in 12 years, just want revenge" (to quote some future Limbaugh or Fox News show).

    Let him leave office in January 2009 a failure....and the Dems have a shot at both Houses of Congress and the White House.

    Turn this into the "liberal version of Clinton's Witch Hunt"...and Maverick John McCain can force a split between the Sane and Insane among Democrats in 2008.

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2006 @ 2:42pm

  80. And you want to be their party pooper....why?

    Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 09/18/2006 @ 2:40pm\

    Answer--Posted by MASK 09/18/2006 @ 2:42pm

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2006 @ 2:43pm

  81. Posted by MASK 09/18/2006 @ 2:42pm

    nope I think i'd rather impeach him

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 2:44pm

  82. Mask,

    I answered your point of 2:43PM at 12:20!

    I stick by it.....I'll trade a Democratic Party power dynasty for actual accountability anytime.

    Hopefully the Republic will still be here long after the Democratic Party is assigned Whig status.

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/18/2006 @ 2:48pm

  83. To think that the framers of the Constitution would take impeachment lightly or treat it as a necessary evil is ludicrous. They might not have had to sacrifice blood and treasure if they'd been able to impeach their Mad King George.

    Other than that, anybody else noticed that once you're hired/elected into the "bubble world" called the government, all the standards and rules under which the "real world" operates no longer apply. Hell, you don't even need a resume to get the job in the first place. Just read George's.

    Posted by felicity at 09/18/2006 @ 2:52pm

  84. Mask -

    Now sure when I ever predicted what will actually happen - thought I was just voicing my opinion. I'll leave the predictions to you. Who knows - maybe "The GOP Massacre of 1999" so often cited by the pundits will be repeated leading to six plus years of a Democrat majority!

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2006 @ 2:58pm

  85. nope I think i'd rather impeach him

    Posted by WILL C. 09/18/2006 @ 2:44pm |

    Good for you WILL.....I can always count on you to prove my point!

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2006 @ 3:00pm

  86. Good for you WILL.....I can always count on you to prove my point!

    Posted by MASK 09/18/2006 @ 3:00pm

    you had a point?

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 3:03pm

  87. Let's imagine this scenario.....November 12, 2006, Sunday, and if it's Sunday, it's "Meet The Press"--

    RUSSERT---"Rep. Pelosi, now that Democrats have won the majority in the House of Representatives and your Speakership is assured...a lot of the talk, on the blogs, and the Media is....Will Democrats seek to impeach President Bush and Vice-President Cheney?"

    PELOSI---"Tim, that's a little rash. Sure we will investigate and do our job as the Legislative to hold the Administration accountable, but I think that talk is pre-mature."

    RUSSERT----"So, you don't see a case for impeachment?"

    PELOSI----"No, there are some questions...about the NSA program and other things....but it's far to early to call for impeachment. We Democrats want to show the American people we can lead and have better..."

    RUSSERT----"Wait a minute. So are you totally taking impeachment off the table?"

    PELOSI----"Tim, removing the President is a serious matter. The Republicans learned that lesson in 1999 and it hurt them. We need to show the American people that we can provide better leadership on health care, education, fighting terrorism, the deficit, etc."

    RUSSERT----"You do realize that if both President Bush and Vice-Pres. Cheney are impeached...that would possibly make you President?"

    PELOSI----(Laughing) "I don't want the job, Tim. Again, we are going to show the American people that we have better ideas on health care, education, jobs, a raise in the minimum wage, immigration....before we concern ourselves with investigations...though, uh, investigations will be part of our agenda"

    RUSSERT----"Rep. John Conyers, who will be Chairman of the House Judiciary, says he has already drawn up bills of impeachment?"

    PELOSI----"Those are just preliminary points of investigation, Tim....not a real bill of impeachment"

    RUSSERT----"So, John Conyers isn't going to seek an impeachment?"

    PELOSI----"No, Tim. John will investigate and hold the Admistration accountable".

    (and on and on and on....Naw....that's just a fantasy. Nance will show all the backbone and unity she's showed in the past and call for Bush's head....Day One, November 8th, 2006!.....riiiiiiight?)

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2006 @ 3:08pm

  88. Russert: So what lesson did the GOP learn after 1999? G.W. Bush won the presidency in 2000 - among other things, campaigning on "restoring dignity and honor to the White House" an obvious reference to Clinton and the Lewinsky scandal. And in 2000 the GOP only lost two seats in the House. And since that time, Bush was re-elected and the GOP has maintained its majority in both houses. So tell me Nancy (i.e. Mask), were the Republicans truly "hurt" that badly?

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2006 @ 3:14pm

  89. Posted by MASK 09/18/2006 @ 3:08pm

    what do you say we not imagine that senario.

    as a figment of your imagination it is most likely the last thing that will happen

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 3:18pm

  90. Don't forget that Nixon won by a landslide, 60%+, in 1972. And had better poll numbers than hsuB before the shit hit the fan. Uuuhmmm, I wonder how fast hsuB's numbers will tank to the sub teens when his sorry shit is on prime time. Think he stutters now-- just wait.

    Nixon (Gallup)

    1/1973 Approve 51% Disapprove 37%

    6/1973 Approve 44% Disapprove 45%

    1/1974 Approve 27% Disapprove 63%

    8/1974 Approve 24% Disapprove 66%

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/opinion/polls/ main1005327.shtml

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/18/2006 @ 3:24pm

  91. Oh yeah and then Carter won. So much for the lalalaland scenario of an impeachment damaging the dems for 2008.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/18/2006 @ 3:34pm

  92. Dear Love Liberty,

    Given your name and the clear perversion of the English language that the name conjures perhaps it is you that has the difficulty with my native tongue.

    But I digress.

    Here is my information that is seemingly better than the US Army's information:

    As stated....

    1.Trophy is currently at the testing stage. Raytheon's system, by Ratheon's estimate will not be test ready for another 5 years.

    2. Raython's system (unlike Trophy) will have 360 degree range of motion. Meaning that it is mounted on a motorized swivel. If the US Army needs me to help them out with a motorized swivel I'll do it tomorrow and I'll charge a tad less than $70M!

    3. Raytheon's system will have reload capability which is an admitted improvement on Trophy. However, it is not envisioned in battlefield that a unit will field multiple RPG's as locating the RPG launcher and nuetralizing it becomes the obvious counter attack.

    4. All in all, assuming the Raytheon system delivers its promise it will be a small incremental improvement on Trophy (recall US Army testing of Trophy showed it effective 30 of 30 times).

    Our boys and girls are on tours of duty in hostile lands today.....we all hope they'll be safe and sound within 5 years time. Why can't we have the best system avaiable as soon as possible rather than have scores or hundreds killed so that Raytheon's profits can be better?

    Once Raytheons system is operational I'm all for switching to a better system.

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/18/2006 @ 3:46pm

  93. The Defense Secretary We Have

    By William Kristol

    Wednesday, December 15, 2004; Page A33

    "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/18/2006 @ 3:54pm

  94. Reality check. If stock-holders have a meeting and come to the conclusion that the CEO in charge of their corporation is taking it down the tubes - they're going to lose mega-bucks - they fire his ass. That's the real world. George Bush is taking our country down the tubes. Don't you think it's about time that we, who inhabit the real world, fire his ass? Either that, or stage a revolution?

    Posted by felicity at 09/18/2006 @ 4:06pm

  95. NBC's TIM RUSSERT: "So there would be investigations."

    REP. PELOSI: "Well, what I told them is we will have an investigation of energy prices. We will have an investigation." ...

    RUSSERT: "How about of the war?"

    REP. PELOSI: "That would be if - I said we'd have hearings on the war. We'd have hearings on the war." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 5/7/06)

    NBC's TIM RUSSERT: "Is impeachment off the table?"

    REP. PELOSI: "Well, you never know where the facts take you ... for any president." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 5/7/06)

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/18/2006 @ 4:09pm

  96. Wow, my early years of catholic schooling and the radical nuns from Spain weren't ever like this...:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/09/18/ video-kids-at-jesus-camp_n_29703.html

    Perhaps this is the real reason hsuB won't be able to get impeached-- he'll have an army of kid whorshippers surrounding him 24/7 and congress won't be able to give him a subpoena!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/18/2006 @ 4:27pm

  97. I never said he limited private funding did I? which would mean I'm not completely wrong now am I?

    Posted by WILL C. 09/18/2006

    Actually, you are completely wrong. To limit funding means that you have a CAP on what you can contribute to the research. There is no such cap. The Government on the other hand also has choices to make.... we do not have the funds to invest in every type of research. So if there are tax payers that object to embryonic research, then let the Government fund other lines of stem cell research and the private side can make up the funding for embryonic.

    The Government funding of embryonic research FORCES your (and my) beliefs on those that believe embryonic research to be morally wrong. The opposite does not hold true as you and I are able to still fund the research privately.

    Posted by John B at 09/18/2006 @ 4:42pm

  98. he is if he doesn't do anything about it. Chimpy hasn't done anything about it.

    (even though he said he would)

    Posted by WILL C. 09/18/2006 @ 2:24pm

    So to YOU there was no investigation? Let me be the first to break the news to you... there WAS an investigation. Only Libby was indicted for lying. No one was indicted for anything else. What other action is Bush to take?

    Just because YOU want someone found guilty no matter what, does not mean our justice system will play to your whims.

    Posted by John B at 09/18/2006 @ 4:46pm

  99. Dear Lover of Liberty,

    I presume that as a lover of liberty you're delighted at today's story that one of the UK Army's pre-eminant retired bomb & explosive experts has publicly revealed that the notion that you could mix explosive in a plane toilet is utterly ludicrus. Obviously, this is good news since it means we can retake back our liberty of being allowed to take a bottle of Poland Spring on a plane trip.

    http://tinyurl.com/h8xht

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/18/2006 @ 4:52pm

  100. Posted by JOHN B 09/18/2006 @ 4:42pm

    Actually, you are completely wrong. To limit funding means that you have a CAP on what you can contribute to the research. There is no such cap.

    the limits of my wallet are a cap. Which would mean I'm not completely wrong

    The Government on the other hand also has choices to make.... we do not have the funds to invest in every type of research. So if there are tax payers that object to embryonic research, then let the Government fund other lines of stem cell research and the private side can make up the funding for embryonic.

    there are tax payers that object to war. and we've yet to privatize the army. hell, if we did that there would be no army. the cheep skate hamsters would never fund it

    The Government funding of embryonic research FORCES your (and my) beliefs on those that believe embryonic research to be morally wrong. The opposite does not hold true as you and I are able to still fund the research privately.

    and doesn't do any of that and the idea that morality is a reason opt out of paying taxes isn't supported by either the constitution or case law.

    nice try though

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 4:52pm

  101. So to YOU there was no investigation? Let me be the first to break the news to you... there WAS an investigation. Only Libby was indicted for lying. No one was indicted for anything else. What other action is Bush to take?

    Just because YOU want someone found guilty no matter what, does not mean our justice system will play to your whims.

    Posted by JOHN B 09/18/2006 @ 4:46pm

    Dude you're getting hysterical. chimpy himself said he would fire anybody who released classified information.

    Valerie Wilsons status was classified. Rove, cheney... they're still not fired

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 4:55pm

  102. All right, Will, your arguments still don't make sense, especially the Establishment Clause one.

    First off, you contradict yourself when trying to give a clear standard for a violation of the Establishment Clause. First you say this:

    As long as the secular societal reasons for banning murder exist, there is no conflict with the establishment clause..

    Ok, great, then I don't have to care about the motivations of the legislators. Or do I....?

    motivation is everything in this country. It's the difference between self defense and first degree murder.

    Look, you don't provide a clear standard at all, so I'll do it for you. Motivation is a wretched standard, because it doesn't "establish" anything. As you very aptly point out, the fact that legislators are motivated to pass a law against murder doesn't mean that they violate the Establishment Clause. If there are any plausible non-religious arguments, then, it clearly passes the test.

    But what if there aren't? I'd argue that there's no violation even then. Why? Because there still isn't any kind of establishment taking place; no one is being coerced to adopt a set of religious beliefs or act as though those beliefs were true, so there's still no violation. However, I would argue that since the stem cell law could be justified with secular reasoning (even though I don't really buy the reasoning), there's clearly no violation.

    First of all you have to define the fundamental dignity of human beings. Does that mean we don't water board them? Does it mean we don't lock them naked in a conex with a strobe light and a continuous loop tape of Christina Aguilera music as company? Does it mean we don't pile them up naked or force them to simulate homosexual sex acts while pictures are taken? You see the people who oppose stem cell research don't seem to have a real big problem with the actions I just mentioned. That makes your argument is really weak

    Um, no it doesn't make the argument weak at all. The standard isn't "the particular legislators have to justify it on secular grounds, in a way that's consistent with what they do, the standard is that it has to be justifiable on non-religious grounds. As such, consistency with other views that legislators or the President hold is utterly irrelevant.

    And as to the question of when life begins, that question only exists in religion. Science has answered it a long time ago. And at conception wasn't the answer it came up with.

    No, science can't answer that question, because we have to determine what kind of biological function or activity constitutes morally significant life. That's a question for either religion or philosophy. What is interesting to me is that you never actually answered the two arguments themselves. As long as those arguments are even tenable by a reasonable person, your argument goes away.

    National security matters, operations and personal defiantly fall under Chimpy's commander and chief responsibility's

    Really? National security is purely a military issue? I thought there were police and investigative groups involved too. Oddly enough, I also thought there was this group called Congress. So, wrong again, national security is not a strictly military area of responsibility.

    He's not the manager of a business. He's commander in chief. And as such is responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen… everything. The buck stops here right baby?

    No, that doesn't make any sense. The very idea of responsibility implies some kind of causual connection; if I couldn't reasonably have been expected to prevent something from happening, there's no way I can be held responsible for it. Otherwise, responsibility would require people to do the impossible, and that's crazy.

    In addition, being responsible for something in any meaningful way means that you actually, you know, had something to do with it. If there was an act of wrongdoing that you weren't actually connected to in any way, that you didn't tacitly allow, you're not responsible for it.

    By either of these standards, Bush is not responsible for the leak. He couldn't have been reasonably expected to prevent it (especially since you never showed that he released the info to start with), and he certainly didn't implicitly or explicitly authorize the leak.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/18/2006 @ 4:59pm

  103. As long as the secular societal reasons for banning murder exist, there is no conflict with the establishment clause..

    Ok, great, then I don't have to care about the motivations of the legislators. Or do I....?

    motivation is everything in this country. It's the difference between self defense and first degree murder.

    Look, you don't provide a clear standard at all, so I'll do it for you. Motivation is a wretched standard, because it doesn't "establish" anything. As you very aptly point out, the fact that legislators are motivated to pass a law against murder doesn't mean that they violate the Establishment Clause. If there are any plausible non-religious arguments, then, it clearly passes the test.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 4:59pm

    thrawn you're an idiot. I have said repeatedly that chimpy passed a executive order limiting the federal funding of stem cell research based soley on his relgious dogma.

    the standard is solely

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 5:02pm

  104. But what if there aren't? I'd argue that there's no violation even then. Why? Because there still isn't any kind of establishment taking place; no one is being coerced to adopt a set of religious beliefs or act as though those beliefs were true, so there's still no violation. However, I would argue that since the stem cell law could be justified with secular reasoning (even though I don't really buy the reasoning), there's clearly no violation.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 4:59pm

    you didn't give any resons for a ban or limitation of funding that wasn't part of someones religious dogma.

    and all the people who are denied the treatment that stem cell research could provide are being forced to suffer because of chimpies religious dogma

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 5:05pm

  105. Um, no it doesn't make the argument weak at all. The standard isn't "the particular legislators have to justify it on secular grounds, in a way that's consistent with what they do, the standard is that it has to be justifiable on non-religious grounds. As such, consistency with other views that legislators or the President hold is utterly irrelevant.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 4:59pm

    sure it does

    you hamster are the poster child for mans inhumanity to man, but role in a petri dish with a couple of blastocysts floating around in it, and suddenly you start talking about the dignity of life.

    sorry... it jsut isn't believable

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 5:08pm

  106. No, science can't answer that question, because we have to determine what kind of biological function or activity constitutes morally significant life. That's a question for either religion or philosophy. What is interesting to me is that you never actually answered the two arguments themselves. As long as those arguments are even tenable by a reasonable person, your argument goes away.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 4:59pm

    are you insane. science says that life began around 4 billion years ago and has continued on as one unbroken chain up to this moment... right now

    there not alot of dispute about that except in religion

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 5:10pm

  107. Really? National security is purely a military issue? I thought there were police and investigative groups involved too. Oddly enough, I also thought there was this group called Congress. So, wrong again, national security is not a strictly military area of responsibility.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 4:59pm

    the cia isn't part of the police force. it's part of our national security apparatus... headed by the comander in chief

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 5:12pm

  108. Motivation is a wretched standard, because it doesn't "establish" anything.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 4:59pm

    Motivation is everything, even if it is "wretched". If our nation's seafood industry was failing and needed a little help from the bully pulpit, I, as the first vegetarian president, could issue an order that no one is to eat anything other than fish on Friday to prop up demand. Contrast that with a situation in which our nation's seafood industry is healthy, but I, as a good Catholic president, order that no one is to eat anything other than fish on Friday to coax everyone into falling my bizarre religious beliefs.

    So, you're saying that there is no difference?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/18/2006 @ 5:18pm

  109. Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 4:59pm

    No, that doesn't make any sense.

    it doesn;t make any sense that the president isn't the manager of a business?

    The very idea of responsibility implies some kind of causual connection; if I couldn't reasonably have been expected to prevent something from happening, there's no way I can be held responsible for it. Otherwise, responsibility would require people to do the impossible, and that's crazy.

    as commandere in chief the president is held to a higher standard. he isn't responsible for the individual criminal behavoir of those in his administration, but he is responsible for negligence. And his administraion releasing the name of a NOC cia agent was a supreame act of negligence.

    In addition, being responsible for something in any meaningful way means that you actually, you know, had something to do with it. If there was an act of wrongdoing that you weren't actually connected to in any way, that you didn't tacitly allow, you're not responsible for it.

    chimpy's vice president was asking questions about valerie wilson. the next thing we know, her name is out in the papers. chimpy and little dick... are connected both operationally and constitutionally.

    By either of these standards, Bush is not responsible for the leak. He couldn't have been reasonably expected to prevent it (especially since you never showed that he released the info to start with), and he certainly didn't implicitly or explicitly authorize the leak.

    it happened on his watch. and people involved are still working for him.

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 5:22pm

  110. Oh, just looked at my last post and meant "following my bizarre religious beliefs".

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/18/2006 @ 5:27pm

  111. hey TJ

    glad you came back

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 5:30pm

  112. Posted by WILL C. 09/18/2006 @ 4:52pm

    "the limits of my wallet are a cap. Which would mean I'm not completely wrong "

    The limits of "your wallet"???

    1) We are talking about everyone who shares our opinion, NOT you as an individual.

    2) Even though "your wallet" might be tapped out, it does not stop you from raising money privately for the research. Thus, NO CAP.

    "there are tax payers that object to war. and we've yet to privatize the army. hell, if we did that there would be no army. the cheep skate hamsters would never fund it"

    Funny, I cannot recall the section of the Constitution that declares it is the responsibility of the government to provide money for medical research. Yet there is a section that describes the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide for national defense.

    "and doesn't do any of that and the idea that morality is a reason opt out of paying taxes isn't supported by either the constitution or case law."

    Who said anything about opting out of taxes?

    "nice try though"

    Back at ya. I think I recall now why I had you on the ignore list.

    Posted by John B at 09/18/2006 @ 7:54pm

  113. *sigh* This just never seems to end. I'm making arguments all over the place, but you're just distorting or ignoring most of them.

    First, on the Establishment Clause.

    You continue to claim that Bush's support for the law was based solely on his religious beliefs. The argument that you missed, again, is that it doesn't matter:

    Motivation is a wretched standard, because it doesn't "establish" anything. As you very aptly point out, the fact that legislators are motivated to pass a law against murder doesn't mean that they violate the Establishment Clause. If there are any plausible non-religious arguments, then, it clearly passes the test.

    Again, it doesn't matter whether there are arguments that particular legislators could credibly used; the question is whether a policy could be defended on non-religious grounds. As I made very clear, a stem cell law could be defended on non-religious grounds, based on a conception of the dignity of human beings. This idea, which underlies most if not all of international human rights, can be supported regardless of whether you are religious. It could be used to defend this law by defending a particular view of when life begins. It's not a question of when life began to exist on the Earth; rather, what it's asking is this: at what point does the grouping of cells become a human being with moral rights? Unless you're going to argue that there is no possible justification for a view that life begins pretty early, the law can be justified on grounds other than religious ones.

    You also missed the other key argument. What if the motivations and the only justifications of a law are religious. I argue that it still doesn't violate the Establishment Clause:

    But what if there aren't? I'd argue that there's no violation even then. Why? Because there still isn't any kind of establishment taking place; no one is being coerced to adopt a set of religious beliefs or act as though those beliefs were true, so there's still no violation.

    That means that even if you're right, even if the legislation can only be defended on religious grounds, there's still no Establishment Clause violation. You haven't even bothered to respond to this, but it's a second reason why you're losing the Establishment Clause argument.

    Before I go to the Plame issue, I want to briefly address TJ:

    Motivation is a wretched standard, because it doesn't "establish" anything.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 4:59pm

    Motivation is everything, even if it is "wretched". If our nation's seafood industry was failing and needed a little help from the bully pulpit, I, as the first vegetarian president, could issue an order that no one is to eat anything other than fish on Friday to prop up demand. Contrast that with a situation in which our nation's seafood industry is healthy, but I, as a good Catholic president, order that no one is to eat anything other than fish on Friday to coax everyone into falling my bizarre religious beliefs.

    So, you're saying that there is no difference?

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/18/2006 @ 5:18pm

    As far as the Establishment Clause is concerned, that's exactly what I'm saying.

    Back to Will...

    Next, on the Valerie Plame issue. The only real question here is whether Bush can in some way be held responsible for the leak.

    First, does the fact that the leak occurred within the Administration make Bush responsible for it? No; I argued that it had to be an action that Bush both could have prevented, and either implicitly or explicitly authorized:

    he very idea of responsibility implies some kind of causual connection; if I couldn't reasonably have been expected to prevent something from happening, there's no way I can be held responsible for it. Otherwise, responsibility would require people to do the impossible, and that's crazy.

    In addition, being responsible for something in any meaningful way means that you actually, you know, had something to do with it. If there was an act of wrongdoing that you weren't actually connected to in any way, that you didn't tacitly allow, you're not responsible for it.

    Your response was this:

    as commandere in chief the president is held to a higher standard. he isn't responsible for the individual criminal behavoir of those in his administration, but he is responsible for negligence. And his administraion releasing the name of a NOC cia agent was a supreame act of negligence...

    chimpy's vice president was asking questions about valerie wilson. the next thing we know, her name is out in the papers. chimpy and little dick... are connected both operationally and constitutionally...

    it happened on his watch. and people involved are still working for him.

    First, on the Commander-in-Chief thing. Again, being the Commander-in-Chief is only one of the President's many roles. This should be pretty apparent given that many of his responsibilities have nothing to do with the military. It should be pretty obvious that national security also isn't a purely military thing; it involves not only non-military agencies like the CIA, but also regular police forces (who clearly aren't part of the military). In fact, you implicitly accept this when you say on other threads that the war on terror isn't a purely military effort; in order for that to be true, national security would have to have a significant civilian component, which it does. As such, the Commander-in-Chief responsibility doesn't carry over to everything the President does.

    Moreover, I argued (with no response) that your idea of responsibility doesn't make any sense. Given that, the question becomes: did he somehow authorize the leak?

    There's no evidence so far to show that he did (though I agree with you that the people who leaked the info should have been fired long ago). The closest you've come is to either connect the link to Cheney, or to say that Bush shouldn't have passed around the memo to start with (assuming that he did). If you're right that he passed around the memo, and he didn't have a national security reason to do so, then you have a pretty decent argument.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/18/2006 @ 8:12pm

  114. Posted by JOHN B 09/18/2006 @ 7:54pm

    The limits of "your wallet"???

    1) We are talking about everyone who shares our opinion, NOT you as an individual.

    Everyone who shares my opinion has limits to their wallets

    2) Even though "your wallet" might be tapped out, it does not stop you from raising money privately for the research. Thus, NO CAP.

    see above on limitations to wallets... ie (caps)

    (you're not one of those kooks that believes in the ever growing pie are you)

    Funny, I cannot recall the section of the Constitution that declares it is the responsibility of the government to provide money for medical research. Yet there is a section that describes the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide for national defense.

    When the constitution was written there wasn't a thing called medical research, but it did say something about the general welfare. Medicine would certainly fall under that category. And I don't think our constitution actually uses the term national defense nor has just one section that discusses the common defense. Did you dream that one up?

    "and doesn't do any of that and the idea that morality is a reason opt out of paying taxes isn't supported by either the constitution or case law."

    Who said anything about opting out of taxes?

    You asserted that people shouldn't have to pay their tax dollars for things they morally object too. Neither the constitution nor case law support that assertion

    "nice try though"

    Back at ya. I think I recall now why I had you on the ignore list.

    Back at me? Dude you're lame. And are you sure you didn't ignore me because you're a pussy. It's usually the pussy's that end up ignoring me

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 8:21pm

  115. Again, it doesn't matter whether there are arguments that particular legislators could credibly used; the question is whether a policy could be defended on non-religious grounds. As I made very clear, a stem cell law could be defended on non-religious grounds, based on a conception of the dignity of human beings.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 8:12pm

    Sigh

    The dignity of human beings is an undefined concept. It's vague. And vagaries can't be used as a foundation for a ban.

    But maybe if you repeat yourself a few more times, you're argument will still be just as irrelevant

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 8:25pm

  116. You also missed the other key argument. What if the motivations and the only justifications of a law are religious. I argue that it still doesn't violate the Establishment Clause:

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 8:12pm

    dude the supreame court shoots down school prayer and intellegnt design all the time because the are founded soley on religion and thus thus violatethe establishment clause.

    that is an example of case law that supports my claim

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 8:29pm

  117. That means that even if you're right, even if the legislation can only be defended on religious grounds, there's still no Establishment Clause violation. You haven't even bothered to respond to this, but it's a second reason why you're losing the Establishment Clause argument.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 8:12pm

    I'm starting to wonder if you are completely dense

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 8:31pm

  118. First, on the Commander-in-Chief thing. Again, being the Commander-in-Chief is only one of the President's many roles. This should be pretty apparent given that many of his responsibilities have nothing to do with the military. It should be pretty obvious that national security also isn't a purely military thing; it involves not only non-military agencies like the CIA, but also regular police forces (who clearly aren't part of the military). In fact, you implicitly accept this when you say on other threads that the war on terror isn't a purely military effort; in order for that to be true, national security would have to have a significant civilian component, which it does. As such, the Commander-in-Chief responsibility doesn't carry over to everything the President does.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 8:12pm

    dense boy. if you repeat yourself a few hundred times does the door to the treasure cave open?

    I'm not talking about bushes other roles. Yes he has them. Securing the identity of NOC CIA agents is one of his responsibiltuies as commander in chief. He let his administration release the relatiobnship of valrie wilson with the cia. That is his reponsibilty. why? Because we intrusted him to make sure his guys kept the identity of cia agents secure.

    and he didn't do that

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 8:38pm

  119. Moreover, I argued (with no response) that your idea of responsibility doesn't make any sense. Given that, the question becomes: did he somehow authorize the leak?

    There's no evidence so far to show that he did (though I agree with you that the people who leaked the info should have been fired long ago). The closest you've come is to either connect the link to Cheney, or to say that Bush shouldn't have passed around the memo to start with (assuming that he did). If you're right that he passed around the memo, and he didn't have a national security reason to do so, then you have a pretty decent argument.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 8:12pm

    you don't understand the concept of ultimate responsibilty do you?

    the navy captain that was relived of command because his ship ran aground, didn't authorize the ship be run aground. But as captain, he has the ultimate responsibilty for the negligence that caused the ship to hit bottom.

    releasing the name of valerie wilson was an act of negligence pure and simple. And as commander in chief... chimpy is accoutable

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 8:44pm

  120. "The Government funding of embryonic research FORCES your (and my) beliefs on those that believe embryonic research to be morally wrong. The opposite does not hold true as you and I are able to still fund the research privately."

    Posted by JOHN B 09/18/2006 @ 4:42pm

    The refusal of the government to fund the potentially important, life saving science of embryonic research FORCES your beliefs on those that believe embryonic research to be a scientific imperative (Being in its infancy and needing subsidy, as it is not anywhere near profitable enough for the private sector to fund). The opposite does not hold true as you and I are able to bury your head in the sand privately.

    Seriously, aren't you the one who said (in essence) screw the people who have a 'problem' with the word marriage, in a previous debate (argument?)? This is the kind of essential, but currently unprofitable science that government research was made for.

    As Will pointed out, there are alot of things I fund, with my taxes, that I am opposed to. That is how it works.

    Science says, stem cell research is good.

    Religion says, stem cell research is bad.

    Which view should prevail in our governments legislation? What should we tell the people who may benefit, (or not, and the whole argument is moot). Should we tell them,"some people believe things you find marginaly insane, so we can't fund research for a potential cure for your disease. Sorry."

    Maybe you can, but I cannot.

    ---------------------------------------------------

    Mask, Political viability is moot. Do you seriously believe there is no such things as "the best thing for America"? (Even if you disagree, if those who agree beleive that their nation is in peril, they should do nothing?)

    It is the right thing to do. It sends a message to the Dems. too. Who might be thinking 'we had no clue they were that stupid' and planning their own bullshit, if they get elected.

    President cheney would be hated by most on the left and the right and be stuck doing nothing but vetoing and trying to install another SC justice. I think without bushes docile, imbecile like nature, nobody would like cheneys ideas. The very same idea from beloved bush, would be viewed differently from 'I never really liked that guy' cheney.

    ---------------------------------------------

    "These folks are worse since they also hate America (all while falsely professing to lover her)."

    LL,

    You are an ignorant, hate filled moron. Fuck off and die.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/18/2006 @ 8:47pm

  121. Hi Will,

    not sure how long my blood pressure can stand to post here, but I'll give it a shot. You're doing quite well, I see.

    Thrawn,

    I appreciate the thought you are putting into your arguments against Will, but one thing seems quite clear. You are making things up. It's a fun exercise and all, but there is no basis for your interpretations of the Establishment Clause. Given the consistently strong majority of Americans who are Christians, the fact that God is not thrown even more into the face of us agnostics makes it clear to me that you are wrong. There has never been a more phony-baloney group of victims than American Christians, who whine at every opportunity about their suffering at the hands of their secular masters. But, to the extent that this country is not dripping over in Christian Holy Goo, it would seem that the 1st Amendment is clear enough to prevent not just the most overt inflictions of religion on the American citizenry, but more subtle forms as well.

    But you write of a lack of coersion that you feel is necessary for violation of the establishment clause. Where does "coersion" come in to the constitutional argument? The word is not in the 1st Amendment. Plus, if one's other basic, human rights are discounted on the basis of our president's religious beliefs--instances in which no one is coerced, yet someone is harmed--isn't this an equal counterpoint to yours? Wait, why am I asking? It is, especially with a goober in chief who recklessly tosses out divine explications for his actions.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/18/2006 @ 8:54pm

  122. Will

    Sigh

    The dignity of human beings is an undefined concept. It's vague. And vagaries can't be used as a foundation for a ban.

    It's a shame that you didn't read the very next line in my post:

    underlies most if not all of international human rights, can be supported regardless of whether you are religious.

    Yes, the basic dignity of human beings is repeatedly cited as the foundation of human rights. Look in the Universal Declaration of Rights if you want to:

    Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

    So...if it can be used as the foundation for human rights, why can't it be used as the foundation for policy here?

    dude the supreame court shoots down school prayer and intellegnt design all the time because the are founded soley on religion and thus thus violatethe establishment clause.

    That's not why they shoot them down; they shoot them down because the context is inherently coercive. Insofar as both intelligent design and school prayer inherently require the school, an extension of the government in which children are both a captive audience and in a position of "knowledge inferiority" to the teachers, to endorse a specific religious framework, they violate the Establishment Clause.

    Those are not at all analogous to what we're talking about. What we're talking about is a case where some people passed a law based on their religious beliefs, although that law could still be defended in non-religious terms. They're not the same at all; in fact, this meets the standard that you yourself set.

    Securing the identity of NOC CIA agents is one of his responsibiltuies as commander in chief. He let his administration release the relatiobnship of valrie wilson with the cia. That is his reponsibilty. why? Because we intrusted him to make sure his guys kept the identity of cia agents secure.

    and he didn't do that

    Like I said before, if he released the memo without any kind of national security justification, then you're right. That would be a considerable act of negligence. Negligence makes sense because it means that the leader had the ability to reasonably prevent something from happening, and didn't do it.

    TJ

    I appreciate the thought you are putting into your arguments against Will, but one thing seems quite clear. You are making things up. It's a fun exercise and all, but there is no basis for your interpretations of the Establishment Clause.

    Why do you say that? I gave a really clear reason why the standard involves some form of coercion, namely that without that coercion, there's no "establishment" of anything! This seems somewhat intuitive. What's your alternative?

    Where does "coersion" come in to the constitutional argument? The word is not in the 1st Amendment. Plus, if one's other basic, human rights are discounted on the basis of our president's religious beliefs--instances in which no one is coerced, yet someone is harmed--isn't this an equal counterpoint to yours? Wait, why am I asking? It is, especially with a goober in chief who recklessly tosses out divine explications for his actions.

    All the reasons you've just given are reasons why the stem cell law might be a bad thing. Not a single one of them is a reason why it would violate the Establishment Clause.

    Coercion comes to play in the meaning of the word "establishment," ie, how do you know whether the government has "established religion"? There has to be a standard to determine this, and a necessary condition that I'm arguing for is coercion.

    Eric

    Science says, stem cell research is good.

    Religion says, stem cell research is bad.

    This actually isn't true. "Science" can't say whether an action is good or bad; the scientific method can't answer moral questions. You have to combine scientific facts with moral premises, and then you can get answers to moral questions.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/18/2006 @ 9:22pm

  123. Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 9:22pm

    You convieniently picked the most meaningless part of my post, out of context. Are you saying there is a secular reason, with substancive evidence to support it, that we should ban essential research?

    Even if there were an argument, it is obvious the bush made his decision, based on his religious belief. What would you say to someone, who could potentially, be cured by the fruits of this research? What would you tell him was your reasoning behind refusing to fund it?

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/18/2006 @ 9:30pm

  124. Yes, the basic dignity of human beings is repeatedly cited as the foundation of human rights. Look in the Universal Declaration of Rights if you want to: Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, So...if it can be used as the foundation for human rights, why can't it be used as the foundation for policy here?

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 9:22pm

    Because pain and suffering isn't a human right dummy.

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 9:44pm

  125. That's not why they shoot them down; they shoot them down because the context is inherently coercive. Insofar as both intelligent design and school prayer inherently require the school, an extension of the government in which children are both a captive audience and in a position of "knowledge inferiority" to the teachers, to endorse a specific religious framework, they violate the Establishment Clause.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 9:22pm

    Interesting, didn't I just say that the Supreme Court shot them down because they violate the establishment clause.

    I could have swore I just said that

    And the president forcing the nation to endorse his specific religious framework in regards to stem cells, would make his behavior a violation of the establishment clause

    Hey… thanks for making my case Thrawn

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 9:44pm

  126. Those are not at all analogous to what we're talking about. What we're talking about is a case where some people passed a law based on their religious beliefs, although that law could still be defended in non-religious terms. They're not the same at all; in fact, this meets the standard that you yourself set.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 9:22pm

    actually... no it doesn't. The standard I set for a ban or limitation included both secular reasoning and harm to the community.

    the only harm being done the the community in this case is the presidents actions themselves.

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 9:45pm

  127. This actually isn't true. "Science" can't say whether an action is good or bad; the scientific method can't answer moral questions. You have to combine scientific facts with moral premises, and then you can get answers to moral questions.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 9:22pm

    science can say that research is good in that it can be benifical to the world at large. science says that about stem cells.

    thus MALs claim "Science says, stem cell research is good"

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 9:51pm

  128. Coercion comes to play in the meaning of the word "establishment," ie, how do you know whether the government has "established religion"? There has to be a standard to determine this, and a necessary condition that I'm arguing for is coercion.

    Why couldn't we just look for "existence" rather than "coercion"? The Amendment says nothing of force; it simply says "establish", which can be as simple as saying, "let it be". You have reached far beyond a logical reading of a very simple statement in order to rationalize inherently religious decisions by the federal government.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/18/2006 @ 9:56pm

  129. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/18/2006 @ 9:56pm

    The state churches of Europe are the least coercive. They don't force people to go to church and people don't go to church.

    But they are still an established religion, simply because they exist.

    So you're correct. No coercion is necessary for establishment

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 10:07pm

  130. Eric

    You convieniently picked the most meaningless part of my post, out of context. Are you saying there is a secular reason, with substancive evidence to support it, that we should ban essential research?

    Do I think there's a secular justification that reasonable people could make? Yes, and I made it earlier (really early starting point for morally significant human life). Do I believe that justification, or see it as sufficient? No. I agree with a lot of your post, and I think it provides reasons why the law is bad, but not why it's unconstitutional. I just wanted to point out the one thing that struck me, that's all.

    Will

    Yes, the basic dignity of human beings is repeatedly cited as the foundation of human rights. Look in the Universal Declaration of Rights if you want to: Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, So...if it can be used as the foundation for human rights, why can't it be used as the foundation for policy here?

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 9:22pm

    Because pain and suffering isn't a human right dummy.

    Ummm...whaaa? How is that at all responsive? My whole point was that the idea of human dignity is intelligible, to the point where it's used as the foundation of human rights.

    Interesting, didn't I just say that the Supreme Court shot them down because they violate the establishment clause.

    I could have swore I just said that

    Yes, yes you did, and you're right. My whole argument is that those cases aren't analogous to the one we're talking about. As such, this is the part that's wrong:

    And the president forcing the nation to endorse his specific religious framework in regards to stem cells, would make his behavior a violation of the establishment clause

    It doesn't force the nation to endorse his specific religious framework if there's a secular justification that could be used; this misses all of the analysis from before about why basing constitutionality on the motives of legislators is dumb.

    The standard I set for a ban or limitation included both secular reasoning and harm to the community.

    Yeah...harm to the community is a standard that has nothing to do with the Establishment Clause.

    science can say that research is good in that it can be benifical to the world at large. science says that about stem cells.

    There's a moral premise hidden in there, namely that "something which is beneficial to the world at large is good." That's not a scientific premise, and no scientific experiment can ever support or reject it.

    Back to Eric

    Why couldn't we just look for "existence" rather than "coercion"? The Amendment says nothing of force; it simply says "establish", which can be as simple as saying, "let it be". You have reached far beyond a logical reading of a very simple statement in order to rationalize inherently religious decisions by the federal government.

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/18/2006 @ 9:56pm

    Um....what? Is your argument actually that letting churches exist is unconstitutional? I'm betting (and hoping) that it's not, because I know that you're much smarter than that.

    Now, maybe your argument is that the existence of an established church is a violation, regardless of whether people are forced to support it or not. I think that's at least a reasonable standard.

    As far as this issue is concerned, though, I don't think the results are any different; passing this kind of policy doesn't entail the government endorsing any particular religious framework. Why not? Because the existence of an established religion not only requires the existence of more than one law (otherwise there's no general framework that legislators are continually empowering and promoting), but also that taxes are levied specifically to support the established church (as is the case in the very state churches you make reference to). In that respect, at least, they are coercive.

    One issue to consider though: "established" need not mean the same thing for us that it means for European states; the phrase "Establishment of religion" has a particular meaning based on its history in the creation of the Constitution.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/18/2006 @ 10:32pm

  131. Ummm...whaaa? How is that at all responsive? My whole point was that the idea of human dignity is intelligible, to the point where it's used as the foundation of human rights.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 10:32pm

    if the idea is intelligable then you must have a definition that all humans will agree to

    don't you?

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 10:38pm

  132. Yes, yes you did, and you're right. My whole argument is that those cases aren't analogous to the one we're talking about. As such, this is the part that's wrong:

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 10:32pm

    I knew I was right

    and thanks for admiting you were wrong

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 10:40pm

  133. It doesn't force the nation to endorse his specific religious framework if there's a secular justification that could be used; this misses all of the analysis from before about why basing constitutionality on the motives of legislators is dumb.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 10:32pm

    there are sins of commision... and there are sins of ommison. forcing religion down peoples throats is a clear violation of the establisnment clause. Withholding things from people becuase of religion is an equally clear violation.

    courts all the time take custody of children whose parents deny them medical care becuase of religious dogma. The courts this do for two resons, one is becuse the state is tasked to look after the well being of it's citizens and two..because religious arguments can not stand in court. If they did that would be a establihmsnt of religion. And that's prohibited by our constitution

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 10:48pm

  134. Yeah...harm to the community is a standard that has nothing to do with the Establishment Clause.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 10:32pm

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    Harm to the community is precisely the reason for the establishment clause. Unless the people are free to worship or not worship according to the dictates of their own conscience, they are not free.

    And that is most decidedly harmful to a community of free men and free women.

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 10:53pm

  135. Was I that obtuse? I don't think so, but it's Monday, I'm rusty at this, I'm flipping from football to NBC (Amanda Peet on a series, are you kidding me?), and I'm enjoying a lovely '00 Cab found in the local Winn-Dixie.

    US is majority Christian, though they bicker with each other over the details. So what is the coercion you rant on about? A president would have little problem simply saying that this or that is now the law of the land, especially with a most brainless Supreme Court currently farting up their robes. By "establish," Congress and the Prez could and can do as they wish based on the religious myths du jour. Frozen embryoes as evidence of divine creation? No problem...no money. Where is the coercion? The majority are lambs and we are a democracy so a majority is as blessed as the Golden Boy in the White House. You might not like to unravel a couple of layers of connectors, but scientific decisions that are based on religious beliefs are, in the hands of the federal government, more than a little thorny when trying to bring the beliefs of our founders into the mix.

    But back to the original, muddled point. Coercion remains an argument made only in your world and intent is everything.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/18/2006 @ 10:53pm

  136. Yes let's restore checks and balance with impeachment. Then bring on the criminal charges and the trials. Justice demands that Bush/Cheney and cohorts be punished for their crimes.

    Posted by tsitrayrgna at 09/18/2006 @ 10:55pm

  137. There's a moral premise hidden in there, namely that "something which is beneficial to the world at large is good." That's not a scientific premise, and no scientific experiment can ever support or reject it.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 10:32pm

    but scientists can. And, when the experimant yields benifical results to the community... they will

    Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 10:56pm

  138. Yes, and I made it earlier (really early starting point for morally significant human life).

    Please define "morally significant". Or more specifically, moral.

    "There's a moral premise hidden in there, namely that "something which is beneficial to the world at large is good." That's not a scientific premise, and no scientific experiment can ever support or reject it."

    Beneficial = good. This is a moral premise? Sounds more like the very definition of the word. Whether one is devine or evil, beneficial means good. No it is not a scientific premise. It is a linguistic and literal premise.

    Belief that a few cells w/o self awareness, thought or even capacity to develop organs that could, is just that. Belief.

    Laws should be made based on facts, not wild conjectures based on religious precepts.

    That you can make specious arguments in a secular vein does change the fact that most who oppose stem-cell research do so because of their faith.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/18/2006 @ 11:34pm

  139. Thrawn,

    I assume you are now tired of trying to use logic with kooks.... and Will is the biggest kook of all.... he believes he is the epitome of compassion...in reality he doesn't understand your point of view and doesn't want to see it from any other side than his own.

    He is a full blown programed and locked down lib...complete with blinders on and a self earned sense of total enlightenment with his view point as proof...ergo, you lose...every time... Total kook and as such, he will be in charge of nothing...thank god..I imagine at his work he is watched very carfully..

    He is a kook...and you are nuts for even reaching out...there is nothing to grab onto there...he hates you simply because of your views and beleifs..kinda like some of the jihadists....make no mistake, if Will could, he would eliminate you.

    Kook through and through.

    Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2006 @ 12:08am

  140. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/19/2006 @ 12:08am

    Is THRAWN supposed to respond favorably to your, let's be charitable, drink-induced lather in which you call him "nuts"? As you have noted, Will and others (myself included) have disagreed with THRAWN, who has handled himself quite well. Along comes slobbery Maasch looking to hump THRAWN's leg by barking "kook" five times in a single post.

    I assume THRAWN has a walking stick to swat you on your behind and send you searching for a dumpster to dive into.

    Just say no, John, at least after your fourth or fifth round, or I'll be forced to remove your network card.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/19/2006 @ 12:17am

  141. He is a kook...and you are nuts for even reaching out...there is nothing to grab onto there...he hates you simply because of your views and beleifs..kinda like some of the jihadists....make no mistake, if Will could, he would eliminate you.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/19/2006 @ 12:08am

    That's pretty twisted maasch. You have really gone over the edge.

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 12:47am

  142. one could almost say that you're a kook

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 12:48am

  143. one could almost say that you're a kook

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 12:48am

  144. it was so true I had to say it twice

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 12:49am

  145. An initial glance at the title of this article made be do a double take, for I mistakenly thought it read, "Let the Pope Lead." That would be different.

    Posted by RobertW at 09/19/2006 @ 01:52am

  146. THRAWN

    I couldn't respond per Nichols closed the thread on the older blog, but your last response was once again disingenuous as you changed the argument to one I hadn't posed i.e.:

    Apart from just disagreeing with logic you'll need more corroboration that 1+1 does NOT= 2.

    So what you're saying is...logic isn't a basis for challenging something? Are you joking? If you say "well, according to source X, Y is the case," I could legitimately challenge that by saying "but Y doesn't make any sense, for A, B and C reasons."

    Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 8:32pm

    Similarly I stated that prices for oil came down in Nov/2004 and you continued to respond with the prices in the 3rd quarter-- I even challenged you to look it up but you didn't per you'd lose the argument. You argue not to clarify but to obscure. Example:

    YOUR ARGUMENT BASED ARTICLES:

    Did Saudis assure Bush on oil prices? Report says prince pledged re-election support President Bush with Saudi Arabian ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan at the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas, Aug. 27, 2002. Eric Draper / Reuters file Related Stories By John W. Schoen Senior Producer MSNBC Updated: 4:58 p.m. CT April 19, 2004

    The White House Monday declined to comment on a report in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward that a Saudi Arabian ambassador had promised the Bush administration that it would lower oil prices to help boost the U.S. economy in time for the November presidential election.

    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    Oil prices blight US growth hopes

    Ashley Seager Saturday October 30, 2004 The Guardian

    The American economy has failed to give George Bush a pre-election boost as figures out yesterday showed slower than expected growth in the third quarter of the year.

    Separate data showed consumer confidence wilting under the effect of high oil prices, which have pushed the price of petrol at the pumps above the $2 a gallon level.

    $$$$$$$$$$$$

    ARTICLES WITH SIMPLE GOOGLE SUBSTANTIATING MY ARGUMENT:

    http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1299/3/

    Faced with continuing high prices, OPEC was in a weak position at its September 15 meeting. With spare capacity reduced to about one mbd in Saudi Arabia, OPEC sought to remedy high prices by announcing an increase in its production ceiling from 26 to 27 mbd effective November 1. This was more a signal than an actual change because current production from the OPEC-10 was already known to be 28 mbd.

    Despite interest by several members, a decision was postponed on whether to raise the price band, which by this point had become irrelevant. Naimi clearly opposed the raise, saying it should only be raised if there was a structural change in the market. Saudi Arabia, now producing 9.5 mbd, did announce just before the meeting that it would add 800,000 barrels per day of production capacity in two new fields by the end of September. Kuwait is also planning a more modest expansion. The WTI crude price fell slightly after the meeting to US$43.58

    $$$$$$$$$

    http://www.haverfordtrust.com/commentaries_and_newsletters/ comm_archv_4q2004.html

    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    OK, so what does this prove? It proves that there was an effort to lower gas prices for Novermber as I stated before and prices did come down in the 4th quarter. It also proves that Thrawn is a dishonest debater pure and simple. If one wants to debate whether 1+1 does not = 2, lets debate that-- not then changing the 1 I'm talking about into an imaginary number that I'm not talking about.

    And my apologies for the interuption of this thread but I had to respond.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2006 @ 08:58am

  147. BUSH, Elections have no influence on crude prices...it is too hard to manage with a fungible product being bought by every nation on earth.

    The speculators went home for now and demand has dropped...the hurricanes have never showed up at this point..as a result..prices have dropped...world wide demand has slipped so the panic has subsided..this can easily reverse itself should events in the world cause another panic run..

    The refineries in Texas damaged from the last hurricane are not on line as of yet, and the new refineries being built are 10 years in the completion...if we move faster and open more fields we can keep prces loweer for the future..all these things take time. There is an abundance of crude out there...enough to keep the prices in check...the question is will we go get it..to speed alternative fuels and engines there has to be a real shortage of crude, not contrived shortages, as they never last...until we run short of crude the real pressure to develop altenatives will come from politicians and interest groups of a variety of colors...but real deveopment will come from market pressures.

    We could see $2.00 gas by Thanksgiving.

    Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2006 @ 09:58am

  148. Back at me? Dude you're lame. And are you sure you didn't ignore me because you're a pussy. It's usually the pussy's that end up ignoring me

    :)

    Posted by WILL C. 09/18/2006 @ 8:21pm

    I almost got pissed at that, but the smiley saved you. ;)

    Posted by John B at 09/19/2006 @ 11:38am

  149. Eric/Malcontent...

    The government cannot fund everything. There is no need for the government to be involved in medical research. As long as they do not limit private research, then it does not matter if the government invests or not. But the most important factor is that it is NOT the governments function.

    Will contends that it is the governments responsibility to look out for the general welfare... which is true. But to take that to the extent he suggests is wrong. Based on that argument, we should all give 100% of our earnings to the government and have them run every aspect of our lives.

    Also, please NOTE: you need to specify the difference between not funding stem cell research and not funding embryonic stem cell research when discussing what the government funds.

    Posted by John B at 09/19/2006 @ 11:47am

  150. Will contends that it is the governments responsibility to look out for the general welfare... which is true. But to take that to the extent he suggests is wrong. Based on that argument, we should all give 100% of our earnings to the government and have them run every aspect of our lives.

    Posted by JOHN B 09/19/2006 @ 11:47am

    I've never said that we should give 100% of our earnings to the government and have them run every aspect of our lives.

    I've never made that argument. I've never implied that argument. And, I would not support that argument

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 1:23pm

  151. I've never made that argument. I've never implied that argument. And, I would not support that argument

    Posted by WILL C. 09/19/2006

    Acutally Will, you did. You stated that medical research should be considered a part of the Feds responsibility of ensuring general welfare. That line of logic leads to either the government doing everything for us or you accepting the fact that the government is NOT responsible for every aspect of our lives and therefore can leave the medical research to the private community.

    Posted by John B at 09/19/2006 @ 4:20pm

  152. Acutally Will, you did. You stated that medical research should be considered a part of the Feds responsibility of ensuring general welfare. That line of logic leads to either the government doing everything for us or you accepting the fact that the government is NOT responsible for every aspect of our lives and therefore can leave the medical research to the private community.

    Posted by JOHN B 09/19/2006 @ 4:20pm

    So let me understand this. From me saying that promoting the general welfare covers the federal government as a reason for investing our tax dollars in medical research (in this case embryonic stem cells), you extrapolate that I want the federal government to take 100% of all our earnings and run every aspect of our lives.

    Ha Ha Ha Ha (you a cwazy hamsta)

    How do you even attempt to justify that rationalization in your own mind?

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 6:00pm

  153. How do you even attempt to justify that rationalization in your own mind?

    Posted by WILL C. 09/19/2006 @ 6:00pm

    How do YOU justify putting medical research into general welfare??? Your extrapolation is just as idiotic. THAT was the point.

    Posted by John B at 09/19/2006 @ 6:56pm

  154. How do YOU justify putting medical research into general welfare??? Your extrapolation is just as idiotic. THAT was the point.

    Posted by JOHN B 09/19/2006 @ 6:56pm

    How do I do it? That's easy. The health of the people is necessary for the economic, social and spiritual well being of the nation.

    Welfare is a synonym for well being. And the promoting the general welfare of the nation is something that the constitution specifically states as it's purpose for being

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 7:33pm

  155. THAT was the point.

    Posted by JOHN B 09/19/2006 @ 6:56pm

    so when you said "Acutally Will, you did.", you were lying

    You lied to make a point

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 7:35pm

  156. OK, so what does this prove? It proves that there was an effort to lower gas prices for Novermber as I stated before and prices did come down in the 4th quarter. It also proves that Thrawn is a dishonest debater pure and simple. If one wants to debate whether 1+1 does not = 2, lets debate that-- not then changing the 1 I'm talking about into an imaginary number that I'm not talking about.

    And my apologies for the interuption of this thread but I had to respond.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/19/2006 @ 08:58am

    There are a number of problems with your argument here.

    First, your article doesn't support your position. Here's a key excerpt from it:

    Saudi Arabia, now producing 9.5 mbd, did announce just before the meeting that it would add 800,000 barrels per day of production capacity in two new fields by the end of September.

    Now, let's look back at my article:

    Oil prices blight US growth hopes

    Ashley Seager Saturday October 30, 2004 The Guardian

    The American economy has failed to give George Bush a pre-election boost as figures out yesterday showed slower than expected growth in the third quarter of the year.

    Interesting; if your evidence actually indicated anything about Saudi Arabia trying to lower oil prices, it must have failed pretty badly. They increased their production of oil in September, and it hadn't helped the US a month later. So...you lose again.

    Also, even if you were right about this, it wouldn't matter. If the Saudis are messing around with oil prices, you can't blame it on the President. It would be an independent decisions by the Saudis because they think it in their interest, and not any kind of indication of corruption by President Bush.

    Sidenote: A quarter is, quite literally, 1/4 of a year. So, it's unclear how October 30 would be in the third quarter, and November 2 would be in the fourth. If oil prices went up in the fourth quarter, therefore, it wouldn't help Bush anyway.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/19/2006 @ 7:47pm

  157. if the idea [of human dignity] is intelligable then you must have a definition that all humans will agree to

    don't you?

    Posted by WILL C. 09/18/2006 @ 10:38pm

    I mean, the idea is just that all human beings have intrinsic worth, and that they're not just tools to be sacrificed for the collective pleasure. Why is that difficult? Also, the fact that you can't provide a precise definition doesn't make it not meaningful. This argument is silly.

    there are sins of commision... and there are sins of ommison. forcing religion down peoples throats is a clear violation of the establisnment clause. Withholding things from people becuase of religion is an equally clear violation.

    Um...no, it's not. The fact that legislators limit people's freedom because of religious convictions that they hold (even if a secular justification could be used) does not mean that they're forcing religion down anyone's throat. This doesn't constitute an establishment of Christianity, or even of religion in general. Will, really, this is dumb.

    courts all the time take custody of children whose parents deny them medical care becuase of religious dogma. The courts this do for two resons, one is becuse the state is tasked to look after the well being of it's citizens and two..because religious arguments can not stand in court. If they did that would be a establihmsnt of religion. And that's prohibited by our constitution

    If parents could justify a certain action on non-religious grounds, but choose to justify the action in religious terms instead, their claim can still be upheld. Also, the reason you can't use religion in court isn't because religion is a bad justification period, it's because the courts can only rule on the basis of law, and religious beliefs aren't law. The only thing this proves is that the freedom of religion is not absolute, which should be obvious.

    Harm to the community is precisely the reason for the establishment clause. Unless the people are free to worship or not worship according to the dictates of their own conscience, they are not free.

    This argument structure doesn't work. Establishment of religion is bad because it causes a particular kind of harm to the community. This doesn't mean that any and all harm to the community suddenly becomes a violation of the Establishment Clause.

    Eric

    Beneficial = good. This is a moral premise? Sounds more like the very definition of the word. Whether one is devine or evil, beneficial means good. No it is not a scientific premise. It is a linguistic and literal premise.

    This is where things get a little crazy. Look, scientists can only tell you about the way things are (or were, or might be). Moral judgments tell you what ought to be. You can't make an automatic leap from one to the other, which is why scientific judgments, by themselves, can never be the basis for moral judgments. You have to add in moral premises, which could be derived either from philosophy or from religious traditions, so it's not like one side is using "facts" and the other one isn't.

    As a sidenote, contrary to what some argue, science is also incapable of disproving the existence of God.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/19/2006 @ 8:09pm

  158. I mean, the idea is just that all human beings have intrinsic worth, and that they're not just tools to be sacrificed for the collective pleasure. Why is that difficult? Also, the fact that you can't provide a precise definition doesn't make it not meaningful. This argument is silly.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/19/2006 @ 8:09pm

    Of course it silly thrawn. You're a silly boy. I've been arguing all along that the concept of human dignity is vague. and you just supported that argument

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 9:02pm

  159. Um...no, it's not. The fact that legislators limit people's freedom because of religious convictions that they hold (even if a secular justification could be used) does not mean that they're forcing religion down anyone's throat. This doesn't constitute an establishment of Christianity, or even of religion in general. Will, really, this is dumb.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/19/2006 @ 8:09pm

    sure it does.. especially if there is no secular reasoning for the withholding and most especially if there is no harm done to the community.

    and it's really dumb... because you keep arguing a stupid point

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 9:06pm

  160. "The government cannot fund everything. There is no need for the government to be involved in medical research. As long as they do not limit private research, then it does not matter if the government invests or not. But the most important factor is that it is NOT the governments function."

    Posted by JOHN B 09/19/2006 @ 11:47am

    Are you serious? Of course the government cannot do everything. Nor should it. But, are you saying medical research is not appropriate use of tax dollars? (especially if, like in this instance, potential profitabilty is years, maybe decades away. These are not the projects that the private sector, who can't see beyond next quarter, are going to invest in. As a side note, this myopic corporate vision, is also why business should not own the govt. As is currently the case.)

    Why does the govt. fund anything then? NASA? NOAA? Why is it appropriate (BTW, it's not) for the govt. to subidize oil exploration, but not medicine. You may argue, that you don't support subsidies to oil companies, but they would argue that it is done for some public good. (That'd be a funny story, if they tried to explain it).

    If scientific research is out of bounds for govt., I can hardly think of any justification for most of what the govt. does. Who's gonna do it? Nobody? How will we compete with other nations and keep our top-dog status without research? Other nations who DO subsidize research.

    You seemed so reasonable before. I am having a hard time wrapping my brain around the idea that important research, that could potentially change the face of medicine, is not appropriate for govt. funding. Are you serious, or just being argumentative?

    (BTW, we have actually changed the topic. I thought we were arguing about Embryonic stem cell research, not govt. subsidized scientific research in general.)

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/19/2006 @ 9:06pm

  161. If parents could justify a certain action on non-religious grounds, but choose to justify the action in religious terms instead, their claim can still be upheld. Also, the reason you can't use religion in court isn't because religion is a bad justification period, it's because the courts can only rule on the basis of law, and religious beliefs aren't law. The only thing this proves is that the freedom of religion is not absolute, which should be obvious.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/19/2006 @ 8:09pm

    you're right courts can only rule on the basis of law. And the law says that they can not recognise the arguments of any religion because doing so would be taking sides and that is a violation of the establishment clause.

    our govenment is not allowed to be part of religious dogma

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 9:10pm

  162. This argument structure doesn't work. Establishment of religion is bad because it causes a particular kind of harm to the community. This doesn't mean that any and all harm to the community suddenly becomes a violation of the Establishment Clause.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/19/2006 @ 8:09pm

    Dude are purposely being dense. Or are you just bullshitting me now

    When I say

    Unless the people are free to worship or not worship according to the dictates of their own conscience, they are not free.

    I'm laying out the particular kind of harm being done to the community. (and in case you missed it the second time.. it's " they are not free")

    Any and all harm to the community includes a cop shooting a bystander in a shoot out. I think we all agree that that's not a violation of the establishment clause you fucking idiot

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 9:18pm

  163. "This argument structure doesn't work. Establishment of religion is bad because it causes a particular kind of harm to the community. This doesn't mean that any and all harm to the community suddenly becomes a violation of the Establishment Clause."

    And there is no particular kind of harm, in not doing lifesaving research? Because it offends the sensibilities of those who are not sensible???

    ------------------------------------------

    "This is where things get a little crazy. Look, scientists can only tell you about the way things are (or were, or might be). Moral judgments tell you what ought to be. You can't make an automatic leap from one to the other, which is why scientific judgments, by themselves, can never be the basis for moral judgments. You have to add in moral premises, which could be derived either from philosophy or from religious traditions, so it's not like one side is using "facts" and the other one isn't.

    As a sidenote, contrary to what some argue, science is also incapable of disproving the existence of God."

    Posted by THRAWN 09/19/2006 @ 8:09pm

    Crazy? Oh, I get it...as in "Moral judgments tell you what ought to be."? What does that mean? Left wing bloggers whining about what ought to be are moral? Who decides what ought to be? "Moral" is just "ethical" filtered through peoples prejudices. Are you saying E.S.C.R. "ought" not "to be"? On what basis? The vast majority of people who think that, get their "oughts" from the bible.

    Besides, the constitution is evolving. At one time "All men are created equal" meant all politically affiliated white men. Then it meant all white men...then all men (in theory)...then women too. And it is the better for it. Perhaps the first ammendment is evolving with human culture, to be increasing more aware of our less homogenous culture.

    " You have to add in moral premises"

    You do? Why? Science IS based in facts (usually, a few opps! here and there). Why do we need (or want) laws made based on philosophy or religion? The world was rife with such laws before America was founded, (By progressives, with enlightenment ideals). Ever notice it is the very first ammendmant?

    " so it's not like one side is using "facts" and the other one isn't."

    Um...yea...it is. How can you miss that? If you want to get real semantic, one side is using theories based on empirical evidence all can see. And the other is quoting mythology, only a small portion of the world agrees with. Which is closer to your definition of fact?

    "As a sidenote, contrary to what some argue, science is also incapable of disproving the existence of God."

    Irrelevant, but anyway, not the province of science. That religion can not prove the god it purports to represent, is much more telling. That the mythology falls down in the face of some established "facts", (hence the emphasis, by some, on discrediting science and promoting anti-intellectualism), is even more so.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/19/2006 @ 9:35pm

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. February 2010

  2. January 2010

  3. December 2009

  4. November 2009

  5. October 2009

  6. September 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Facing Bipartisan Criticism, RNC's Steele Asks If Race Is Factor | "Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?” he wonders. Maybe he could compare notes with Obama.
John Nichols

» Editor's Cut

New Web Column at The Washington Post | Every Tuesday, I'll be featuring progressive thinking about politics and challenging the Right in my new web column for The Washington Post. Read my first one here.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
32 Comments

» The Notion

When Snow Melts: Vancouver’s Olympic Crackdown | Anger is growing in Vancouver in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Like Olympic clockwork, here comes the media crackdown.
Dave Zirin
44 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

The Mind-Boggling Stupidity of Michael Rubin | How an AEI apparatchik's love affair for Ahmed Chalabi blinds him to Chalabi's pro-Iran treachery.
Robert Dreyfuss
27 Comments

» Act Now!

Demand Question Time | Join the call for the President and Congress to implement regular Question Time sessions.
Peter Rothberg
57 Comments

» And Another Thing

How to Counterbalance Focus on the Family on Superbowl Sunday | Give to help low income girls and women.
Katha Pollitt
54 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | James O'Keefe and Alter-reviews.
Eric Alterman