Could the Press Grow a Spine?

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 24 Jun 2004 14:13:20 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

The constitution was intact until Bush was elected.

Arthur Kramer

OK, Art. Put up. What part of the Constitution is no longer intact?

The Constitution remains intact.

I have a friend who has told me that GWB is not 'her' president.
As I explained, the Constitution provides that every four years
he newly elected Congress meets in joint session and votes to
accept or reject the electoral votes sent to that Congress from
the each state from the preceding Presidential Election. If one
Candidate eligible to thePresidency recieve more than half of
the total of the electoral votes accepted by the Congress then
that candidate is the President Elect and on inaguration day he
becomes my President. In Early January of 2001 the newly elected
Congress met in joint session and accepted enough electoral votes
to make George W Bush the president elect. Thus, on inaguration
day, he became my President.

Neither the (7 - 2) decision by the USSC, that Florida was in
violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment,
nor the concurrent decision (5 - 4) enjoining Florida from
remedying that violation had any affect at all on the competency
of the Congress to accept or reject Florida's electoral votes.

The Consitution remained intact.

Since that time Geroge W Bush and his administartion have seized
thousands of persons within the borders of the United States
and, in violation of the Constitution, held them incomunicado
from their families and legal counsel. Here in the United
States of America, the next to final arbiter of what is or is
not permitted or authorized by the Constitution is the United
States Supreme Court, which recently held in a 6 - 3 decision,
that the above mentioned action is forbidden by the Constitution
and ordered the administration to obey the Constitution and
give all persons held in the custody of the United States,
both within the borders of the United States and abroad, access
to counsel and to the courts.

It remains to be seen if George W Bush and his administration
will obey the orders of the United States Supreme Court. Other
presidents in the past have defied the Court, relying on the
final arbiter in all political actions, power. But if George
W Bush and his administration defy the COurt it will be the most
flagrant such violation of the rule of law in the United States
in over 150 years.

Even if George W Bush or his administration does defy the court,
the Constitution itself will have remained intact. As Andrew
Jackson observed, teh USSC has no mechanism for directly enforcing
its orders. If the Court is defied by this administation it will
be incumbant on Americans to enforce the order of the Court.

George W Bush and his administration have proposed, in flagrant
violation of the Constitution, to create ad hoc courts for the
purpose of trying non-citizens outside of the borders of the
United States. It seems unlikely that the administartion has
sufficient time remaining to it to carry out that plan so the
issue most likely will never come befor the USSC.

And the Constitution will remain intact.

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

The Constitution remains intact.

I have a friend who has told me that GWB is not 'her' president.
As I explained, the Constitution provides that every four years
he newly elected Congress meets in joint session and votes to
accept or reject the electoral votes sent to that Congress from
the each state from the preceding Presidential Election. If one
Candidate eligible to thePresidency recieve more than half of
the total of the electoral votes accepted by the Congress then
that candidate is the President Elect and on inaguration day he
becomes my President. In Early January of 2001 the newly elected
Congress met in joint session and accepted enough electoral votes
to make George W Bush the president elect. Thus, on inaguration
day, he became my President.

Neither the (7 - 2) decision by the USSC, that Florida was in
violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment,
nor the concurrent decision (5 - 4) enjoining Florida from
remedying that violation had any affect at all on the competency
of the Congress to accept or reject Florida's electoral votes.

The Consitution remained intact.

Since that time Geroge W Bush and his administartion have seized
thousands of persons within the borders of the United States
and, in violation of the Constitution, held them incomunicado
from their families and legal counsel. Here in the United
States of America, the next to final arbiter of what is or is
not permitted or authorized by the Constitution is the United
States Supreme Court, which recently held in a 6 - 3 decision,
that the above mentioned action is forbidden by the Constitution
and ordered the administration to obey the Constitution and
give all persons held in the custody of the United States,
both within the borders of the United States and abroad, access
to counsel and to the courts.

It remains to be seen if George W Bush and his administration
will obey the orders of the United States Supreme Court. Other
presidents in the past have defied the Court, relying on the
final arbiter in all political actions, power. But if George
W Bush and his administration defy the COurt it will be the most
flagrant such violation of the rule of law in the United States
in over 150 years.

Even if George W Bush or his administration does defy the court,
the Constitution itself will have remained intact. As Andrew
Jackson observed, teh USSC has no mechanism for directly enforcing
its orders. If the Court is defied by this administation it will
be incumbant on Americans to enforce the order of the Court.

George W Bush and his administration have proposed, in flagrant
violation of the Constitution, to create ad hoc courts for the
purpose of trying non-citizens outside of the borders of the
United States. It seems unlikely that the administartion has
sufficient time remaining to it to carry out that plan so the
issue most likely will never come befor the USSC.

And the Constitution will remain intact.


How can the Constitution remain intact if it is regularly violated?

Subject: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
Date: 7/5/2004 10:57 PM Pacifi

George W Bush and his administration have proposed, in flagrant
violation of the Constitution, to create ad hoc courts for the
purpose of trying non-citizens outside of the borders of the
United States. It seems unlikely that the administartion has
sufficient time remaining to it to carry out that plan so the
issue most likely will never come befor the USSC.

And the Constitution will remain intact.


That was settled in 1865 in Milligan v, U.S. Chief Justice Taney writing for
the majority Guantanamo was used to go around this decision and avoid the law.
Bush thinks he is the law because god told him so. A very dangerous man.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

So we had to wade through all of that for that little gem, Comrade Art? Do
a little reading, sport. Start with any report on Waco if you want to talk
about civil liberties under administration n vs. n-1.

Steve Swartz



"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
From: "Leslie Swartz"
Date: 6/23/2004 11:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Walt:

Be proud of yourself when the second american reolution (back to the
constitution) happens. You played your part in getting Atlas to Shrug.

Steve Swartz



"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
Well I watched "Hardball" last night with Campbell Brown.

She had Bartlett, one of the Bushies on. She asked him a question. He
talked
for a while and she said something like, "you are very articulate, but
that
avoids the question completely." I wish more of the Press would point
out
that
the vast majority of the questions asked are just totally avoided on
both
sides.

She also showed two clips back to back of VP Cheney caught in a big lie
about
Atta's supposed meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. In the one
clip,
Cheney said it was "confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
About a
year later he said he never said that.

Running the clips back to back showed that he just lied. Bartlett
hemmed
and
hawed about that and said the question was still open, but Cheney's
words
definitively said it was NOT open -- it was CONFIRMED (in case anyone
missed it
the first time) that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.

These ******* Republicans have got to go.

Walt



The constitution was intact until Bush was elected.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

From: "Leslie Swartz"


So we had to wade through all of that for that little gem, Comrade Art? Do
a little reading, sport. Start with any report on Waco if you want to talk
about civil liberties under administration n vs. n-1.

Steve Swartz

OK, steve, I see you calling names and such. Do you have anything constructive
to offer?

What have YOU done for your country?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

1) I am most certainly not calling names (Comrade Art is an appropriate
appellation for him; as a Leninite, he should not be ashamed to be what he
is)

2) As far as "and such" if you let me know exactly what "and such" is, I'll
respond

3) The value of my argument should stand alone; oh sorry, I forgot- the
value of a position in this forum is based entirely on pedigree. O.k., I
enlisted in 1978 and am just now cashing it in. I have been in the
newsgroup since 1990 and you could google me up quickly enough.

4) My constructive comment had to do with Art's content-free reply. Are
you attempting to now counter-argue that I was unfair- do you want to claim
that Comrade Art's one liner about "Bush destroyintg the Constitution"
actually had some value?

If so, have at it. If not, why waste the bandwidth.

Steve Swartz

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Leslie Swartz"


So we had to wade through all of that for that little gem, Comrade Art?
Do
a little reading, sport. Start with any report on Waco if you want to
talk
about civil liberties under administration n vs. n-1.

Steve Swartz

OK, steve, I see you calling names and such. Do you have anything
constructive
to offer?

What have YOU done for your country?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

WalterM140 wrote:
Well I watched "Hardball" last night with Campbell Brown.

She had Bartlett, one of the Bushies on. She asked him a question. He talked
for a while and she said something like, "you are very articulate, but that
avoids the question completely." I wish more of the Press would point out that
the vast majority of the questions asked are just totally avoided on both
sides.

She also showed two clips back to back of VP Cheney caught in a big lie about
Atta's supposed meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. In the one clip,
Cheney said it was "confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence. About a
year later he said he never said that.

Running the clips back to back showed that he just lied. Bartlett hemmed and
hawed about that and said the question was still open, but Cheney's words
definitively said it was NOT open -- it was CONFIRMED (in case anyone missed it
the first time) that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.

These ******* Republicans have got to go.

They're not all *******s; some are merely embarrassed.

Cheers

--mike


Walt

A LOT of wasted bandwidth.
1. Stop slanging each other. The 'Ad Hominem'"argument" just wstes
every one's time. (I say bring back the Code Duello and that would
help cut it down.)
2. Lying to the media is really really dumb and should give y'all a
very good idea of the person's character and social intelligence.
Cheney's been caught twice in the past week, so far. I wonder what
else lies in the hearts and minds of Cheney and his ilk? Sorry, I'm
not the Shadow.
3. I was taught very early on in the service that 'taking care of the
troops' was a priority. So why do we have hungry children and worthy
people who are homeless? I note that Reagan was the one who closed
many insane asylums and turned the patients loose to fend for
themselves as best they could.
From the Bible - "Am I my brother's keeper?"
4. Medals don't necessarily mean much - a lot depends on how good the
writer was and what kind of reception the recommendations got at HHQ.
I remember our Group Co saying once that the squadron I was in didn't
have any outstanding pilots - they were just doing their job, hence no
AF Commendation Medals. At the same time he wasn't qualified in the
aircraft - never did qualify in it - and had no idea what we did as
ADC F102 pilots. OTH I know a troop who as Awards and Decs Officer for
his outfit loaded himself and his squadrons up with gongs.
5. FWIW most aircrew nowadays get Purple Hearts posthumously. F4 was
totally lacking in armor, except for the center windshield, which was
thick glass - and failed to stop the 51 cal that nailed one of my
friends. The pitter brough the bird back to Cam Ranh Bay.
6. Now let's show a little more civility to each other. Or, agree to
meet in the morning and settle it personally, to keep the heat down.
7. Get your ass out and vote!
Walt BJ

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
m...

3. I was taught very early on in the service that 'taking care of the
troops' was a priority. So why do we have hungry children and worthy
people who are homeless?


Military dependents are hungry and homeless?

From: (WaltBJ)
Date: 6/26/2004 1:37 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

A LOT of wasted bandwidth.


Agreed, it seems george z, walterm and Art are feeding off each other. In this
and other threads of this type they say absolutely nothing new. What's worse is
they don't seem to see it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired