Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ex-FBI Director Mueller appointed DOJ Special Counsel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    Basically the total opposite of rule by law.
    Yes, so are cops not pulling me over when I am going 5 over on the interstate. Rule of Law is not always the best option. Hell, it's not even usually the best option, it's always better to have rule by NORM rather than law, but that's a totally different discussion.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
      Yes, so are cops not pulling me over when I am going 5 over on the interstate. Rule of Law is not always the best option. Hell, it's not even usually the best option, it's always better to have rule by NORM rather than law, but that's a totally different discussion.
      How did we go from "Presidents should have damn near blanket pardons for anything they do in office, with only certain offenses being unpardonable" to you going 5 mph over the limit on the interstate?

      You appeared to be slightly uncomfortable with the Rump Parliament, and then turned right around and said Presidents should be given a damn near blanket pardon.

      Are you not seeing the irony in that?
      “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

      Comment


      • i am actually a fan of expansive executive powers, but I'm not exactly supportive of the idea of pardoning anyone even remotely associated with a current investigation into one's own Presidential campaign.

        Trump is illustrating the problem of relying on norms as a way to regulate power.
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • Originally posted by astralis View Post
          i am actually a fan of expansive executive powers,
          Well that's just cause you are a lazy guvmint bureaucrat!
          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
          Mark Twain

          Comment


          • not for much longer! i'm about to pull chalks and become a red-blooded dirty slimy contractor!
            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • Will have to put Jack Reacher on your tail...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                not for much longer! i'm about to pull chalks and become a red-blooded dirty slimy contractor!
                I did it the other way around. I did the contractor gig for 17 years building up a great 401K before I took the vow of poverty and became a DAC. Send me a message where you're going.

                And I still owe you a battlefield tour!!!
                “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                Mark Twain

                Comment


                • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                  Will have to put Jack Reacher on your tail...
                  I hope you mean the one from the book and not the crappy one in the movie.
                  “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                  Mark Twain

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                    I hope you mean the one from the book and not the crappy one in the movie.
                    There's lots of Tom Cruise sci-fi films with great premises. Unfortunately, Tom Cruise is in them.

                    It's too bad my favorite genre is science fiction. Which means I have to watch the ones with Tom Cruise in them, even though I haven't cared for him as an actor since perhaps 2002.

                    Arnold Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, is a force multiplier that makes the movies he's in even greater.

                    It's not a simple matter of Sci-Fi Plot + Arnold, it's Sci-Fi Plot x Arnold. The films he's in become exponentially greater, with a few exceptions.
                    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                      How did we go from "Presidents should have damn near blanket pardons for anything they do in office, with only certain offenses being unpardonable" to you going 5 mph over the limit on the interstate?

                      You appeared to be slightly uncomfortable with the Rump Parliament, and then turned right around and said Presidents should be given a damn near blanket pardon.

                      Are you not seeing the irony in that?
                      I'm saying the rule of law isn't always the best option, and isn't even usually the best option. That's the whole idea behind the pardon in the first place. Congress might pass a law saying that anyone who participated in the Confederate rebellion needs to be hanged. It'd be Rule of Law to follow that. It's a totally political decision and totally NOT rule of law for the President to then pardon all the Confederate soldiers, but it'd be a good idea, because if the options are fight and die, and surrender and die, the whole war will continue longer than we need it to.

                      The same applies to Presidents. It's not exactly kosher to let them go, but IMO it's better from a political POV if we don't try to prosecute former Presidents for crimes they committed, unless they are particularly egregious.

                      The Rump Parliament really had neither the authority nor the need to execute the King, IMO, but it's not a good example of the Rule of Law regardless, at least IMO.

                      but I'm not exactly supportive of the idea of pardoning anyone even remotely associated with a current investigation into one's own Presidential campaign.
                      I don't have a disagreement with this, but if I were a Congressional leader I'd be as concerned with the investigation in the first place. I might have a different opinion if I were a SC judge.
                      Last edited by GVChamp; 07 Jun 18,, 22:41.
                      "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
                        Not really sure I think the English Civil War is an example of anything useful. The Rump Parliament is called "Rump" because the military purged the Long Parliament (itself undemocratic by US standards) of everyone they didn't like.

                        Basically the total opposite of rule by law.
                        Well I think you misunderstand the English Civil War which actually started as a tax issue. Charles wanted more money so tried to impose the Ship Tax, which in custom was only payed by coastal towns (mostly what is known as the Cinque Ports, of which there were five, which were otherwise excise free from imports), on all. He did this I think while the 'Long Parliament' which he was reluctant to call was prorogued (ie. not sitting). Alot of Bailiffs and other magistrates refused to comply as it had not been passed by Parliament. Also by custom (the basis of English Common Law) Ship Money was only raised during time of war. A case actually went to court against John Hampen (or something like that) that Hampen lost. In the end not much of the expected tax revenue was payed.

                        This was not enough money by 1940 so first after having ruled without Parliament for 11 yrs he called the 'Short Parliament' (which he did not like and lasted 3 weeks) and then again in 1640 the Long Parliament specifically to get more income. They understandably were not happy with Ship Money writs imposed without their consent as by Magna Carta. Some stuff was done but notes like "Sir, you have done your duty, and your subjects have failed in theirs; and therefore you are absolved from the rules of government, and may supply yourself by extraordinary ways; you have an army in Ireland, with which you may reduce the kingdom" did not inspire confidence in the Parliament. When Charles failed to arrest five MPs he raised his standard in Oxford thus declaring war on Parliament for what he called his 'Divine Right' to basically do as he pleased.




                        Having lost the first part of the Civil War he started it again; making war against his own subjects. It was that he was rightfully executed. All avenues of conciliation were tried but he insisted until the last that Parliament (representing the people) had no authority to judge him since he was supreme head of the legal state. This is just what Trumpkin's misguided followers claim now. Charles lost his head for it.

                        Certainly the 'purging' of the Long Parliament into the 'Rump Parliament' was illegal but the country had been at war twice thanks to the King. What followed was worse briefly; a form of puritan dictatorship called a 'Commonwealth' under Cromwell with no Parliament. The Long Parliament was recalled following Cromwell's death to vote in the Restoration (of Charles ll) and then a new Parliament called.

                        I was a Tory (Conservative) in England and they are the direct inheritors in many senses of the Royalist cause in England. But I think even British educated Conservatives today can recognise 'Divine Right' to do as one pleases is a legal fallacy - it has no part in Common Law. Charles l sought to make himself above the customary norms of levying taxes - which being contrary to custom was contrary to the law. He made war on his own people for his belief that such was right. He payed for it since he refused all compromise. Sic semper tyrannis.
                        Last edited by snapper; 07 Jun 18,, 23:33.

                        Comment


                        • I don't really have any major disagreements with the basic facts of the English Civil War, but you're glossing over a lot of stuff with Parliament and the New Model Army, that make the Parliamentary side look kind of extreme. Even if the Parliament is correct on certain issues, that doesn't mean it has the authority to either try or execute the King, let alone to abolish the monarchy (like it later did). You don't have to believe in the Divine Right of Kings to think that.

                          Trump obviously does not have the divine right of anything and is subject to the checks and balances within the Constitution. But the pardon power is explicitly in the Constitution, and the SC has given the President pretty wide pardon powers.
                          "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
                            Trump obviously does not have the divine right of anything and is subject to the checks and balances within the Constitution. But the pardon power is explicitly in the Constitution, and the SC has given the President pretty wide pardon powers.
                            To pardon oneself?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                              To pardon oneself?
                              Hasn't been done yet, but that's not the same as it being illegal.
                              "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
                                I don't really have any major disagreements with the basic facts of the English Civil War, but you're glossing over a lot of stuff with Parliament and the New Model Army, that make the Parliamentary side look kind of extreme. Even if the Parliament is correct on certain issues, that doesn't mean it has the authority to either try or execute the King, let alone to abolish the monarchy (like it later did). You don't have to believe in the Divine Right of Kings to think that.
                                The only lesson from the English Civil War, as in all wars, is might makes right. One tyrant replaced another tyrant and nobody dared life a finger against Cromwell and nobody punished those in the Rump Parliament for an illegal vote.

                                Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
                                Trump obviously does not have the divine right of anything and is subject to the checks and balances within the Constitution. But the pardon power is explicitly in the Constitution, and the SC has given the President pretty wide pardon powers.
                                As been said, it's a non-starter. Trump may be able to pardon himself but he cannot stop impeachment. Same shit. Different bowl.
                                Chimo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X