Bush Had To Wait Until Dems Were IN CONTROL To Complete His Coup

[Carl]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3489768

kpete  (1000+ posts)         Fri Jun-20-08 12:07 PM
Original message
Bush Had To Wait Until Dems Were IN CONTROL To Complete His Coup   
   Advertisements [?]

Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 12:07 PM by kpete
I’d like to underscore the fact that in 2006, when the Congress was controlled by Bill Frist and Denny Hastert, the administration tried to get a bill passed legalizing warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, but was unable. They had to wait until the Congress was controlled by Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to accomplish that.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/19/telec...

They just don`t ever seem to be happy on the island.

app_farmer_rb  (500 posts)         Sat Jun-21-08 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
29. Democratic collusion on retroactive immunity is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
   It's right there in our Constitution, plain as day:

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Article 1, Section 9. See for yourself:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.ar...

"ex post facto" = 'after the fact' = RETROACTIVE


 

Now, who's got the money for a lawsuit?

-app

I don`t pretend to be a legal or Constitutional scholar but even a little research would reveal DUmbass that what it means is passing a law making an action illegal retroactively.

That no one corrects him/her is no surprise either.

Hydra (1000+ posts)         Fri Jun-20-08 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. No real surprise
   Reid was upset when Dodd and the others stood in the way of this in December.

I'll keep asking until someone gives me a satisfactory answer- Why is Bush getting what he wants from our Party and we aren't?

The reason is simple...they know the American public would run them out of Dodge.
Your party only needs you for the money you send,nothing more.
Chew on it.

Hydra (1000+ posts)         Fri Jun-20-08 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. That argument only goes so far
   We have no obligation to offer Bush ANY bill. If we have to, we can filibuster/sit on anything he wants.

If he wants bills from us, we can send our bills through first and say "Sign, and no signing statement, or you don't get your war funding later this week."

Congress refuses to stop someone who illegally invaded a nation. Why?

See above.

wiggs (1000+ posts)        Fri Jun-20-08 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
20. That's my point. We don't have to pass ANY legislation. nt

For the most part...Fine by me.

youngharry (158 posts)        Sat Jun-21-08 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. Obama and FISA
   I'm not so sure Obama is caving on FISA. Remember he is a Constitutional Law Professor. He knows that while the House Bill gives "civil immunity" to the telecoms, it does NOT give "criminal immunity" to them and they can still be sued.

Also, remember that he has stated that he would try to take the immunity clause out of the Bill when it reaches the Senate next week.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, HOWEVER, IF THERE IS A FALSE-FLAG ATTACK ON THE US BY THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY BETWEEN NOW AND THE ELECTIONS TO HELP MCCAIN, THE REBUBLICANS WILL STONE OBAMA BY SAYING HE COULD HAVE STOPPED THE TERRORIST IF HE HAD VOTED "YES" ON THE FISA BILL

Think about it...

Do they only let you out of the nuthouse on the weekends?

wildbilln864  (1000+ posts)       Fri Jun-20-08 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
10. Nancy Peloshit should be up on charges for aiding and abetting IMHO! nt

Perhaps you all can do a better job naming her crimes then you have proven you can with the President.

Overseas  (696 posts)        Fri Jun-20-08 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
13. Sadly true. Sadder still -- only 10% of us voted against Pelosi reelection.
   That was really sad. I entered a protest vote for Shirley Golub but only about 10% of my fellow voters in her district did so. Pelosi was re-elected with 89% of the vote.

Uhmmmm...maybe your dim mind should grasp where that leaves DUmmies as a percentage of the population.
Guess what it is away from her district.

clixtox  (332 posts)        Fri Jun-20-08 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Very depressing outcome!
   
I find it hard to believe that only about 10% of San Francisco registered Democrats didn't avail themselves of the opportunity to send a message to "off the table" Nancy Peloshiti.

There must have been some vote counting chicanery involved!

Those residing in her district should write her every day and tell her that she is a war criminal and has abetted the many crimes committed by the shrub administration.

I didn`t get my way!!!

It HAS to be because it was stolen,everyone agrees with me!!!

Welcome to the real world 10 percenter.

[Lauri]

Hydra (1000+ posts)         Fri Jun-20-08 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. That argument only goes so far
   We have no obligation to offer Bush ANY bill. If we have to, we can filibuster/sit on anything he wants.

If he wants bills from us, we can send our bills through first and say "Sign, and no signing statement, or you don't get your war funding later this week."

Congress refuses to stop someone who illegally invaded a nation. Why?

does anybody bother to explain to Hydra that the US Congress supported Bush in his 'invasion' of Iraq?

from CNN:

Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)
 
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

[Lord Undies]

The little goons of Skinner Island wouldn't look so stupid if they would stop their ridiculous harping on criminality, which doesn't exist within the actions of the congress or president within the confines of performing their elected duties, and switch to a solid argument about the constitutional aspects of such actions.

"Illegal war" makes about as much sense as "illegal taxation".  Presidential "signing statements" aren't illegal, or if they are someone should have said something many many administrations ago.  "Spying on American citizens" is nothing new, not unique to the Bush administration, and the current hysteria - without previous hysteria to give it backbone - comes off as hypocritically politically driven and advantageously phony.  

The little goons need to get a grip.  They are marginalizing themselves into oblivion.

[DixieBelle]

I love it when they let the crazy fly so freely.

[docstew]

i like the fact that they claim to be so "educated", but don't realize that the founder of the Democrat Party (albeit not the modern DNC), Thomas Jefferson, pushed through the Alien and Sedition Acts, which would have restricted their rights to spew this kind of drivel.  Also, they refuse to admit that one of their icons, JFK, would today be politically to the right of McCain (what that says about the conservative movement, I don't want to contemplate)

[Chris_]

Amazing that someone as stupid as Chimpy McShrub has been able to pull off such a coup to actually force a democratic controlled congress to shred the Constitution. 

Wow -- Moriarty-like planning and execution from someone who is too stupid to even speak or think clearly.

[Airwolf]

And yet they would do the same to real citizens of the  USA given half the chance and not even go through the courts. Just ask MLK.