The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

After 8 years of dismantling domestic security, of needlessly stirring up the situation in the middle east, of trampling on the constitution, of absolutely running this country in the ground...

We now have a President who is brilliant, articulate, educated in constitutional law and has a deep and abiding love for his country.

Someone who will actually treat the Presidency like a job, not a means to follow through with a twisted and dangerous agenda... Someone who will put America's interests above their own.

It's a great day to be an American.

On to the new cult of personality!

Serious question for you, Skinsfan55: do you think Obama will respect constitutional limits to presidential power? If yes, what makes you think so?

Do you think Obama will decrease U.S. military presence abroad? (I don't mean reshuffle, I mean a net decrease.)

Just curious. . .Obama somehow got a reputation as a peace candidate, or at any rate many "anti-war" people are now going silent since he's going to be the president, but I'm not sure why. As for domestic/constitutional issues, maybe it's just because Bush was so bad that anyone looks better in comparison, but from what I understand Obama hasn't expressed any interest in removing illegal wiretaps, de-escalating constitutional violations in the name of 'security', etc. How is he supposed to be different?

Irn-Bru wrote:Serious question for you, Skinsfan55: do you think Obama will respect constitutional limits to presidential power? If yes, what makes you think so?

I'd tend to think so. He taught constitutional law at UChicago, after all. So he probably knows the limits on executive power (such as signing statements) that Bush never did (or just conveniently ignored). The most serious Constitutional scholars are actually those who believe in a limited executive branch (see Antonin Scalia, especially regarding domestic executive power).

In fact, Obama has explicitly said he will reverse quite a lot of the expansion of the exec office that occured under Bush (but has not given any particulars).

And the leader of his transition team, John Podesta, recently (Sept 2008) gave testimony to Congress regarding the Bush administration's policy regarding secrecy of records.

We'll see, though.

PulpExposure wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Serious question for you, Skinsfan55: do you think Obama will respect constitutional limits to presidential power? If yes, what makes you think so?

I'd tend to think so. He taught constitutional law at UChicago, after all. So he probably knows the limits on executive power (such as signing statements) that Bush never did (or just conveniently ignored). The most serious Constitutional scholars are actually those who believe in a limited executive branch (see Antonin Scalia, especially regarding domestic executive power).

In fact, Obama has explicitly said he will reverse quite a lot of the expansion of the exec office that occured under Bush (but has not given any particulars).

And the leader of his transition team, John Podesta, recently (Sept 2008) gave testimony to Congress regarding the Bush administration's policy regarding secrecy of records.

We'll see, though.

What about the 9th and 10th amendments since his campaigns ignored those completely? Does he get to pick and choose and still follow the Constitution?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:What about the 9th and 10th amendments since his campaigns ignored those completely? Does he get to pick and choose and still follow the Constitution?

I'm not sure what you mean? Can you give me a few cites so I can read up on this?

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:What about the 9th and 10th amendments since his campaigns ignored those completely? Does he get to pick and choose and still follow the Constitution?

I'm not sure what you mean? Can you give me a few cites so I can read up on this?

Sure! These are all off Obama's website if you google that and look at the "issues" menu. I was no where near done, I thought this was enough to demonstrate the point he has no regard at all for the 9th or 10th. The 10th is not like others, it says EVERYTHING not mentioned is Unconstitutional for the Feds. And the 9th says that each of these is as important as the enumerated protections from federal power. This is a flagrant disregard for the Constitution and a belief is nothing when it's pick and chose the ones you want.

- The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans

- Obama and Biden will require coverage of preventive services, including cancer screenings, and will increase state and local preparedness for terrorist attacks and natural disasters

- Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work (No Constitutional Authority except for the Federal Government employees)

- Employment Non-Discrimination Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression (No Constitutional Authority except for the Federal Government employees)

- Obama and Biden will provide job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling to ex-offenders, so that they are successfully re-integrated into society (No Constitutional Authority except for Federal prisoners)

- Obama and Biden believe the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated (no Constitutional Authority for any involvement by the Federal Government in drugs).

- Obama and Biden will give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs (no Constitutional Authority for any involvement by the Federal Government in drugs).

- Provide federal incentives to state and local police departments to prohibit the practice {racial profiling}, (No Constitutional Authority to provide "incentives")

- Obama and Biden will fight to provide students with disabilities the public education

- Obama and Biden will restore the Americans with Disabilities Act, reducing workplace and labor market discrimination against people with disabilities

- Obama and Biden will ensure people with mental or functional disabilities are placed in community settings when appropriate

- improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college

- The Obama-Biden comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan will provide critical support to young children and their parents

- Obama and Biden will create a new American Opportunity Tax Credit worth $4,000 in exchange for community service (No Constitutional Authority for "community service")

- Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation

- Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future

- Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America

- Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.

- Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050

- Obama and Biden will double funding for after-school programs

- expand the Family Medical Leave Act

- Obama and Biden will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs

- raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour (Minimum wage has no Constitional Authority)

- Obama and Biden will invest in rural small businesses, improve rural schools, and attract more doctors to rural areas.

- And they will work with urban leaders to increase the supply of affordable housing and address the unique challenges of every metropolitan area

- Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year

- Obama and Biden will create a Social Investment Fund Network to use federal seed money to leverage private sector funding. They will create an agency dedicated to building the capacity and effectiveness of the nonprofit sector

- Obama and Biden are committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people (No Constituational Authority for Social Security)

- Obama and Biden will allow the federal government to negotiate for lower drug prices for the Medicare program. They also support allowing seniors to import safe prescription drugs from overseas. (Medicare, drugs, none of this is in the Constitution hence no Constitutional Authority)

- Obama and Biden strongly support the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.

- Obama and Biden believe we can get true broadband to every community in America

- invest in the sciences, and will provide new research grants to the most outstanding early-career researchers in the country

- Obama and Biden will create a White House Office of Urban Policy to develop a strategy for metropolitan America and to ensure that all federal dollars targeted to urban areas are effectively spent on the highest-impact programs

- Obama and Biden will support job creation, enhance workforce training, and increase access to capital for underserved businesses.

- Obama and Biden will ensure that middle-class Americans get the financial assistance they need to purchase or keep their own home.

- And they will increase the supply of affordable housing.

- Barack Obama and Joe Biden are committed to ensuring that all Americans have health care coverage by the end of his first term in office

- encourage insurers and providers to adopt electronic claims systems, electronic medical records, and patient safety reporting systems

- Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS

- Centers of Excellence in Women's Health at the Department of Health and Human Services. He also supports legislation to encourage research that will examine gender and health disparities

- educate women and increase awareness of ovarian cancer

- Barack Obama introduced two pieces of legislation to significantly reduce the amount of mercury that is deposited in oceans, lakes, and rivers, which in turn would reduce the amount of mercury in fish.

- explore the potential of stem cells to treat the millions of people suffering from debilitating and life-threatening diseases

- expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies

- providing $25 million a year for partnerships between domestic violence prevention organizations and Fatherhood or Marriage programs to train staff in domestic violence services, provide services to families affected by domestic violence, and to develop best practices in domestic violence prevention

- Violence Against Women Act. Signed into law in January 2006, the bill funds and helps communities, nonprofit organizations, and police combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Sure! These are all off Obama's website if you google that and look at the "issues" menu. I was no where near done, I thought this was enough to demonstrate the point he has no regard at all for the 9th or 10th. The 10th is not like others, it says EVERYTHING not mentioned is Unconstitutional for the Feds. And the 9th says that each of these is as important as the enumerated protections from federal power. This is a flagrant disregard for the Constitution and a belief is nothing when it's pick and chose the ones you want.

I gotcha. However, it goes back to the substance of conversations we've had before; I'm not sure Obama (in attempting to change or regulate the cited behavior) is a hell of a lot different than any other president. For example, the federal sentencing guidelines for drug possession weren't enacted under Obama, but have been around (and changed) for years. If Obama changes the guidelines, he won't be doing anything different than what other presidents have done for years.

The way you interpret the Constitution could be completely valid; however, it's not how it's been interpreted by the Courts or by the Federal Government for years. I'm not sure why you think Obama is going to act any worse than other administrations. Actually, I'm sure things won't be much different under him. Except maybe they'll ditch the surveillance stuff we've seen be enacted by the prior administration (i.e., warrantless wiretapping).

PulpExposure wrote:I'm not sure Obama (in attempting to change or regulate the cited behavior) is a hell of a lot different than any other president. If Obama changes the guidelines, he won't be doing anything different than what other presidents have done for years.

I'm not sure why you think Obama is going to act any worse than other administrations. Actually, I'm sure things won't be much different under him. Except maybe they'll ditch the surveillance stuff we've seen be enacted by the prior administration (i.e., warrantless wiretapping).

Bingo.

PulpExposure wrote:Actually, I'm sure things won't be much different under him. Except maybe they'll ditch the surveillance stuff we've seen be enacted by the prior administration (i.e., warrantless wiretapping).

Or at least they'll say that they have.

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Sure! These are all off Obama's website if you google that and look at the "issues" menu. I was no where near done, I thought this was enough to demonstrate the point he has no regard at all for the 9th or 10th. The 10th is not like others, it says EVERYTHING not mentioned is Unconstitutional for the Feds. And the 9th says that each of these is as important as the enumerated protections from federal power. This is a flagrant disregard for the Constitution and a belief is nothing when it's pick and chose the ones you want.

I gotcha. However, it goes back to the substance of conversations we've had before; I'm not sure Obama (in attempting to change or regulate the cited behavior) is a hell of a lot different than any other president

Agreed, I was refuting your point you though he would somehow respect the Constitution and he would be better in that regard then Bush. Since all recent Presidents have picked and chose all receive a complete fail. Whether one respected 4 of the Amendments and another 5 (hypothetically) is irrelevant. None even begin to approach respecting Constitutional Authority and therefore the Constitution.

PulpExposure wrote:For example, the federal sentencing guidelines for drug possession weren't enacted under Obama, but have been around (and changed) for years. If Obama changes the guidelines, he won't be doing anything different than what other presidents have done for years.

True for that particular example, but if you read through even just his proposals I cut out he does everything to disregard Constitutional Authority by changing to your point some existing Constitutional Abominations, adding to others and creating lots of new ones. If as per this example he simply altered existing abominations I could see it as an argument, but most of them expand and create new ones.

PulpExposure wrote:The way you interpret the Constitution could be completely valid; however, it's not how it's been interpreted by the Courts or by the Federal Government for years.

Yes, the government has been OK with it's own rejection of the limits placed on it by the people when they created it. I totally understand that English is an ambiguous language. To pick the obvious one, the commerce clause, there is some gray in commerce. However, the interpretation of the courts is ludicrous since the Constitution was supposed to be an enumerated document of powers ceded to the government. It is not reasonable to interpret an enumerated list as:

- Trade between the States
- Anything else the government can think of and remotely connect it to trade or even the possibility of trade

To argue what an enumerated list does and doesn't cover is valid discussion, to argue they created an enumerated list and that the enumerated items are so broad there is no practical limit at all to what they mean isn't a valid argument, it's absurd.

PulpExposure wrote:I'm not sure why you think Obama is going to act any worse than other administrations

Above

PulpExposure wrote:Actually, I'm sure things won't be much different under him. Except maybe they'll ditch the surveillance stuff we've seen be enacted by the prior administration (i.e., warrantless wiretapping).

The only warrantless wiretapping I saw was for outside the US and not in the jurisdiction of the Constitution. You call Yemen, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Trying to split hairs over I expect Yemen to monitor but not the US when I call terrorist nations is BS. There either is or isn't an expectation of privacy. And again the jurisdiction isn't there. My biggest issue with Bush was holding US citizens w/o trial, that one's enumerated in the bill of rights.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The only warrantless wiretapping I saw was for outside the US and not in the jurisdiction of the Constitution. You call Yemen, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Trying to split hairs over I expect Yemen to monitor but not the US when I call terrorist nations is BS. Their either is or isn't an expectation of privacy. And again the jurisdiction isn't there. My biggest issue with Bush was holding US citizens w/o trial, that one's enumerated in the bill of rights.

Yeah, that was the original intent, but not how it's been used. Decent wiki article on the controversy.

In fact, NSA has acknowledged that it's been used in purely domestic contacts:

The NSA, a signals intelligence agency, implemented the program to intercept al Qaeda communications overseas where at least one party is not a US person. It was later disclosed that some of the intercepts included communications were "purely domestic" in nature, igniting the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy.

Let alone the whole issue regarding Bush's stance that this wasn't subject to FISA, a law passed by Congress in 1978 to prevent exactly this kind of crap.

It's emblematic of Bush's stance. He'd issue executive orders, and then assume they had the power and force above already enacted and long-standing statutory law. And they clearly don't. What, the law actually applies to my programs? No way; I AM THE LAW.

With apologies to Judge Dredd, of course.

Well first of all, you realize those articles could have been written by crazyrhorse1. I read the start of both and neither began with domestic wiretapping, they both described international wiretapping. If you can point me to where they get to the domestic I'll consider that.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Well first of all, you realize those articles could have been written by crazyrhorse1. I read the start of both and neither began with domestic wiretapping, they both described international wiretapping. If you can point me to where they get to the domestic I'll consider that.

Yeesh, you didn't have to read too far in to get to it. The point is that the programs were intended for international use, but as there is no freaking oversight on the NSA because of this exec order, they were used for domestic wiretaps. But I know, OMG 9/11!!!!

I could dig out more sources (like the original NYT article), but your post simply says that to me that you're not interested in reading more about things I post; even though you want to argue about them. I.e., you're completely unwilling to learn something new. That leads me to one conclusion...why do I bother with you? I'm done here.

Go ahead and feel free to rant away about Obama, and the actions he may take.

Looks like someone's not going to play games.

- Condemnation of torture (AG-nominee Holder) implies a return to law. We wrote the Geneva Convention; Congress ratified it, making it US law; Code of Military Justice incorporates it. Bush lawyers Woo and Addington dismissed Geneva and the advice of the JAGs of US Army and Navy.

- Obama statement of Freedom of Information / secrecy promises more open workings of government.

Both hopeful signs.

Even as a political scientist, I don't really put as much stock into issues as I do to character.

Issues that are talked about in the campaign will change, new ones will come up, etc.

What I care about is character and ability, I think Obama has a lot of both.

He's a smart man who I trust to make good decisions for the country and act within the constitution.

He taught constitutional law at one of the most prestigious universities in America, (heck, he even knows the constitution better than the Chief Justice, or so it would seem)

Also to answer Irn-Bru's question... I do think he'll decrease military presence... but it would take time. Initially I think he'll re-distribute soldiers to Afghanistan from Iraq and resume the search for Bin Laden while helping the people there establish a working government.

It may take him a second term to really decrease military presence abroad but that's the overall goal.

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The only warrantless wiretapping I saw was for outside the US and not in the jurisdiction of the Constitution. You call Yemen, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Trying to split hairs over I expect Yemen to monitor but not the US when I call terrorist nations is BS. Their either is or isn't an expectation of privacy. And again the jurisdiction isn't there. My biggest issue with Bush was holding US citizens w/o trial, that one's enumerated in the bill of rights.

Yeah, that was the original intent, but not how it's been used. Decent wiki article on the controversy.

In fact, NSA has acknowledged that it's been used in purely domestic contacts:

The NSA, a signals intelligence agency, implemented the program to intercept al Qaeda communications overseas where at least one party is not a US person. It was later disclosed that some of the intercepts included communications were "purely domestic" in nature, igniting the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy.

Let alone the whole issue regarding Bush's stance that this wasn't subject to FISA, a law passed by Congress in 1978 to prevent exactly this kind of crap.

It's emblematic of Bush's stance. He'd issue executive orders, and then assume they had the power and force above already enacted and long-standing statutory law. And they clearly don't. What, the law actually applies to my programs? No way; I AM THE LAW.

With apologies to Judge Dredd, of course.

I don't expect Kazoo to pay attention to this because of the source (a logical fallacy), but I found this revealing (well, in the sense of uncovering what we already knew was likely):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#28781200

Irn-Bru wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#28781200

Yeesh. This is such big brother crap. The intrusion on our civil liberties truly astounds me. I mean even if the NSA actually limited themselves to the warrantless wiretapping in accordance with Bush's order, if I called or e-mailed my relatives in Italy, they could monitor my phone calls or e-mail. Because there wasn't any sort of restriction to "Yemen" or whatever...it was just foreign communication. And that's ridiculous, since we're a country of immigrants; presumably, a large number of US citizens have people to contact outside of the United States. AND ALL OF THOSE CALLS COULD BE MONITORED...IF the NSA limited its conduct to monitoring only to the language of Bush's order. And as the link shows...they did not.

Right, IF they "reasonably suspect" I have ties to terrorist networks. To me, that is basically no limit at all. I mean hell, that decision has absolutely no oversight whatsoever; and we've seen how far government agencies have taken power without oversight.

The Washington Post reported on August 24, 2005 that fifteen Uyghurs had been determined to be "No longer enemy combatants" (NLEC) after all.[2] The Post reported that detainees who had been classified as NLEC were, not only still being incarcerated, but were still being shackled to the floor. Five of these Uyghurs, who had filed for writs of habeas corpus, were transported to Albania on May 5, 2006 just prior to a scheduled judicial review of their petitions. As of June 22, 2008, seventeen Uyghur men remain incarcerated at Guantanamo. Two years ago, an Administrative Review Board declared all but one to be "approved for release." The Pentagon had previously determined, reportedly as early as 2003, that the Uyghurs should be released. They continue to be incarcerated.

Still being held...without cause.

But I know, it doesn't matter, because they're not US citizens.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Issues that are talked about in the campaign will change...

And THAT'S change we can believe in.

What I care about is character and ability, I think Obama has a lot of both.

...at least that is the image 50% of the country's voters (and Kenya's voters, too) were sold on. Behind the scenes, he is truly "more of the same". For someone who ran on the premise of being a reformer, he tends to do things just like any other politician.

...of course, HE does it via a Blackberry.

Yeah, but he talks a good game.

What I care about is character and ability, I think Obama has a lot of both.

Ahhh... faith. Since that's all you have to back up your opinion. The man has no history, except as a Cook County politician.

Sorry. I don't find that comforting.

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Well first of all, you realize those articles could have been written by crazyrhorse1. I read the start of both and neither began with domestic wiretapping, they both described international wiretapping. If you can point me to where they get to the domestic I'll consider that.

Yeesh, you didn't have to read too far in to get to it. The point is that the programs were intended for international use, but as there is no freaking oversight on the NSA because of this exec order, they were used for domestic wiretaps. But I know, OMG 9/11!!!!

I could dig out more sources (like the original NYT article), but your post simply says that to me that you're not interested in reading more about things I post; even though you want to argue about them. I.e., you're completely unwilling to learn something new. That leads me to one conclusion...why do I bother with you? I'm done here.

Go ahead and feel free to rant away about Obama, and the actions he may take.

I'm trying to work out the logic of this statement. First of all, I pointed out this is Wiki, it's written by anyone. It could have been written by the most partisan of Democrats, even JSPB22. There is no accountability at all.

Second, I stated my view is this is a red herring argument. In reality, both parties have had the same policies regarding Iraq, Oil for Blood, meddling in the middle east and other countries affairs in general, warrantless wiretapping (google Clinton on this). So my view is this is NOT the real issue. I stated my view is actually changing our Middle East policy is the REAL issue. So instead of dealing with my views which makes the links irrelevant as well as without accountability, you demanded I debate a red herring. Isn't that the intent of a red herring by definition, to divert attention to the real issue?

So OK, despite the absence of credible evidence, I will totally concede that Bush is a bastard who committed endless acts of domestic warrantless wiretapping. You win this point, I have addressed it. Now address my points that:

- Both parties are in the middle east for oil, the democrats in particular screaming for endless cheap gas provided by the government

- Both parties are creating enemies by meddling in other country's affairs and that is the real threat to our life and driving the intrusions of liberty

- Bush's policies were not new, Clinton had the same ones

- Both parties in the Congress and Senate are overseeing the process of undercutting our privacy and have abdicated real responsiblity in the issue to debate this one thing.

- The Democrats in particular who claim to deeply believe in privacy from the government are advocating the government assign us a number and track every dollar we earn, donate, invest. They support the drug war and endless invasion of our privacy in all banking transactions. And now they want the government to control their access to health and know every detail about their medical history as the government is the single payer. If the Democrats have ANY modicum of concern for privacy then I'll go to the White House and blow Obama.

In the Middle East, use of the military and this issue of warrantless wiretapping regarding privacy this is a relatively tiny issue. BOTH parties focus on it to divert people from dealing with the real issues. I HAVE addressed your point.

welch wrote:- Condemnation of torture (AG-nominee Holder) implies a return to law. We wrote the Geneva Convention; Congress ratified it, making it US law; Code of Military Justice incorporates it. Bush lawyers Woo and Addington dismissed Geneva and the advice of the JAGs of US Army and Navy.

- Obama statement of Freedom of Information / secrecy promises more open workings of government.

Both hopeful signs.

Well, standing behind a major tax cheat to head treasury's not a good start...

Irn-Bru wrote::lol: Looks like someone's not going to play games.

Thanks! I'm sick of here are two links to endless unaccountable wiki articles as "proof" of a point I'd already said is a red herring argument, which is ignored. Pulp has a way to go to catch my old bud ATV in the link wars though. Man, the guy could vomit links...