to hell with free speech

[Carl]

Lets then make the assumption that as of 8:00 PM EDT the President declares that the Internet is no longer in the realm of free domain but is an arm of the Executive.
Anything taking an adversarial position to O the all powerful will be illegal and punishable.

What will be the reaction from Congress,Rush,Hannity,the public?
Will they also shut down the public airwaves to prevent talk about it?

Will the various private ISP providers comply and will law enforcement act.
If they refuse will the military be called on and as I understand it they can`t be used as law enforcement. (someone knowing please explain the exact details of this)
Would a field commander comply with an unconstitutional order and courts not act?

I think that is enough to suggest the whole thing is bit more involved then an EO and perhaps is bordering on the silly (my opinion).



Now another hypothetical and scarily perhaps a more realistic one.

A terrorist nuke levels a major American city killing perhaps millions.

What amount of our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are we willing to sacrifice and for how long?

[NHSparky]

Stop lying.

Once it was pointed out to you that I was talking about physical ability, you still opted to argue about it.

Your own ****ing posts prove it.  Deal with it.

Okay, rich--let's go with your logic.  The United States military has the "ability" to use nuclear weapons on its own citizens.

Well, in your little world, we should all be cowering in fear because it's certain to happen any second now.

Yep...any second now...tick...tock...tick...tock.

[formerlurker]

Stop lying.

Once it was pointed out to you that I was talking about physical ability, you still opted to argue about it.

Your own ****ing posts prove it.  Deal with it.

Why don't you point them out to me sport?  

Oh, and still waiting for this -- anytime you are ready.  Maybe bkg will spot you an example as you are incapable of original thought it seems.

So you have NEVER heard of the government doing something they lacked the legal authority, yet had the physical ability to do right?

[formerlurker]

Okay, rich--let's go with your logic.  The United States military has the "ability" to use nuclear weapons on its own citizens.

Well, in your little world, we should all be cowering in fear because it's certain to happen any second now.

Yep...any second now...tick...tock...tick...tock.

I told him to listen for the helicopters.... he whined I was picking on him.   

But we know things don't we Sparky.....

[formerlurker]

Now another hypothetical and scarily perhaps a more realistic one.

A terrorist nuke levels a major American city killing perhaps millions.

What amount of our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are we willing to sacrifice and for how long?

That is an excellent question -- you should start a thread with this. 

Depends on who did it, but I would imagine I would be willing to preserve the union by most means possible.   

[NHSparky]

I told him to listen for the helicopters.... he whined I was picking on him.   

But we know things don't we Sparky.....

Rich and bkg--the CC "istas".

Lord help us all.

[Hawkgirl]

Obama administration wants to pass universal healthcare.
Democrat majority in congress passes universal healthcare.

Obama administration wants restricted access to the Internet. (Government controlled internet)
Democrat majority in congress passes restricted internet access "law".

Government just had the "ability" to restrict internet access.


What am I missing here? 

[Carl]

That is an excellent question -- you should start a thread with this. 

Depends on who did it, but I would imagine I would be willing to preserve the union by most means possible.   

What the heck,could be interesting.

[Hawkgirl]

To be more specific.  Government is forcing american people to buy healthcare insurance.   We are in the process of challenging that.  But government still did it.

I believe that is what RichT and bkg mean when they say "ability"

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[NHSparky]

Obama administration wants to pass universal healthcare.
Democrat majority in congress passes universal healthcare.

Obama administration wants restricted access to the Internet. (Government controlled internet)
Democrat majority in congress passes restricted internet access "law".

Government just had the "ability" to restrict internet access.


What am I missing here? 

We have neither universal healthcare nor restricted Internet access.

Next?

[Hawkgirl]

We have neither universal healthcare nor restricted Internet access.

Next?

Because the Obama administration was dumb enough to state that it wouldn't take effect until 2014.  Hopefully it will be repealed......but that's not the point.

[formerlurker]

Obama administration wants to pass universal healthcare.
Democrat majority in congress passes universal healthcare.

Obama administration wants restricted access to the Internet. (Government controlled internet)
Democrat majority in congress passes restricted internet access "law".

Government just had the "ability" to restrict internet access.


What am I missing here? 

See how easy that was -- except that is not what he is talking about.  Legal authority -- the authoirty of Congress to pass legislation, is what I was discussing.

They haven't passed the internet law yet -- the sponsors are backpedaling on it now.  

[formerlurker]

To be more specific.  Government is forcing american people to buy healthcare insurance.   We are in the process of challenging that.  But government still did it.

I believe that is what RichT and bkg mean when they say "ability"

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You would think, but no.   

[NHSparky]

Because the Obama administration was dumb enough to state that it wouldn't take effect until 2014.  Hopefully it will be repealed......but that's not the point.

Actually, that's EXACTLY the point.  Unless the Judiciary has completely lost its mind and the Constitution means NOTHING anymore, they'll declare huge portions of it unconstitutional, if not the entire thing outright.

Checks and balances, dear--again, justice is a process, not a result.

[Hawkgirl]

See how easy that was -- except that is not what he is talking about.  Legal authority -- the authoirty of Congress to pass legislation, is what I was discussing.

They haven't passed the internet law yet -- the sponsors are backpedaling on it now.  

I typed out a long response and lost it...so I'll just say I know that an internet law hasn't passed.  And don't think one will.

[NHSparky]

I typed out a long response and lost it...so I'll just say I know that an internet law hasn't passed.  And don't think one will.

Because again, what the alarmist "istas" like Rich and bkg don't want to admit is that simply because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you WILL.

[Hawkgirl]

 Unless the Judiciary has completely lost its mind and the Constitution means NOTHING anymore,

If we retain the 5-4 Conservative Majority in the SCOTUS, then it's perfectly plausible to believe Obamacare will be repealed.

BUT what if we get a bunch of liberal zealots/judicial activists in there?....what if Obama gets to appoint the next 2 supreme court justices and makes the SCOTUS  liberal leaning.  While we know their job is to interpret...if history is any indicator...what is to stop judges from legislating from the bench?

[NHSparky]

I look at it this way--the longer Kagan keeps opening her yap, the less likely she'll ever be seated.  The Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee had better reach down and find a pair and stand up to this obviously unqualified and totally reactionary nominee.  If she's sent packing, Obama is going to realize he can't put up someone as far left as her, particularly if the Senate swings as much as the House is projected to.

Further down the road, I see Ginsburg retiring next.  Pretty hard to go any more to the left than her, frankly.  Hopefully by then we're at the 2012 election.

[Hawkgirl]

I look at it this way--the longer Kagan keeps opening her yap, the less likely she'll ever be seated.  The Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee had better reach down and find a pair and stand up to this obviously unqualified and totally reactionary nominee.  If she's sent packing, Obama is going to realize he can't put up someone as far left as her, particularly if the Senate swings as much as the House is projected to.

Further down the road, I see Ginsburg retiring next.  Pretty hard to go any more to the left than her, frankly.  Hopefully by then we're at the 2012 election.

I hope so...and Bush was smart to appoint a young Roberts as the Chief Justice.  He'll be around along time, I hope.

[bkg]

Why don't you point them out to me sport?  

Oh, and still waiting for this -- anytime you are ready.  Maybe bkg will spot you an example as you are incapable of original thought it seems.

I've already provided an example that you refuse to acknowledge.

[formerlurker]

I've already provided an example that you refuse to acknowledge.

Post #65.

Just back away from the pom-poms.   

[bkg]

See how easy that was -- except that is not what he is talking about.  Legal authority -- the authoirty of Congress to pass legislation, is what I was discussing.

They haven't passed the internet law yet -- the sponsors are backpedaling on it now.  

And you keep missing the point. You're so stuck in the black and white of the texts that we all hold dear that you are refusing to see what is already happening.

Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to monitor phone calls w/o a warrant? They do it every day.
Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to search a car for drugs w/o your permission? They do it every day.
Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to demand that private property owners "police" people in their establisment to ensure they don't smoke? They do it every day.
Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to demand that you wear a seatbelt? They do it every day.
Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to "regulate" guns produced and sold within the confines of a single state? They do it every day.

You're so wrapped up in what is "legal" that you've ignored what they've been ABLE to do.
How many examples do you need?

[formerlurker]

And you keep missing the point. You're so stuck in the black and white of the texts that we all hold dear that you are refusing to see what is already happening.

Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to monitor phone calls w/o a warrant? They do it every day.
Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to search a car for drugs w/o your permission? They do it every day.
Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to demand that private property owners "police" people in their establisment to ensure they don't smoke? They do it every day.
Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to demand that you wear a seatbelt? They do it every day.
Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to "regulate" guns produced and sold within the confines of a single state? They do it every day.

You're so wrapped up in what is "legal" that you've ignored what they've been ABLE to do.
How many examples do you need?

Oh I know, here's a thought.   Why don't you read the thread from page 1 forward.   Mmmkay?

[bkg]

Because again, what the alarmist "istas" like Rich and bkg don't want to admit is that simply because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you WILL.

Sparky - neither Rich nor I have argued that anyone WILL do anything.

FL has gotten on her soapbox about the "ability" - which is the ONLY thing where I've pointed out she (and you, frankly) are incorrect. No one is sitting here iwth a crystal ball stating what WILL happen. Only what has happened... and since past actions are the best predicter of future, some of us do have a strong cynicism about what this and/or future administrations may do.

[bkg]

Oh I know, here's a thought.   Why don't you read the thread from page 1 forward.   Mmmkay?

You asked for examples - yet again - and I provided them - yet again - and you ignore them - yet again.

I see a pattern forming.