Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 181 to 201 of 201

Thread: Amash is at it again

  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Part of intelligence is knowing what you don't know. You keep trying to delve into arguing "legal jargon" with someone who knows the law, and yes the constitution is a legal document more than you do. Rather than trying to actually understand the argument, you resort to the most inane ad hominems you can come up with. I'm a "liar" or a "Bernie Sanders supporter" or just "mean" because I happen to know what I'm talking about and you don't. You are parroting talking points that you clearly have know idea what they actually mean and you think by repeating them often enough and with enough vigor, vitality and venom you can somehow make your false arguments true. Newsflash, they're still false.

    One more time, if the police raid your home based on a fake warrant, whatever they find while executing that warrant is inadmissible. But that doesn't give you a blanket license to tamper with witnesses or do other obstructions of justice. If you do, you can be prosecuted and that is not a fourth amendment violation. And for the umpteenth time, I do not support impeachment. But this claim that Amash has somehow gone against the 4th amendment because he correctly sees this as two different issues is ridiculous.
    You can't know what you don't know. People that are smart don't even think they are smart they think everyone is as smart as they are.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    “I thought most Republicans knew that this was a witch hunt and the witch hunt is over”
    -Rand Paul

    RAND PAUL: Libertarians like myself for a long time said the intelligence community has too much power. We're very concerned that the CIA or FBI could be investigating Americans for political purposes. That has long been our complaint. I don't understand a libertarian who would take the investigation and say we should pursue it and impeach the president.
    Does that mean you will stand with Rand against Trump trying to use emergency powers for the border wall? I mean you are and Paulbot and not a Trumpbot right?

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-...cy-declaration
    en. Rand Paul: I support President Trump, but I can't support this National Emergency Declaration
    Sen. Rand Paul By Sen. Rand Paul | Fox News
    Facebook
    Twitter
    Flipboard
    Comments
    Print
    Email

    Sen. Rand Paul says he'll vote to block Trump's border emergency
    Congress poised to reject President Trump's national emergency declaration; Rich Edson reports.

    In September of 2014, I had these words to say: "The president acts like he's a king. He ignores the Constitution. He arrogantly says, 'If Congress will not act, then I must.'

    Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.”


    A Message from Zapier

    Connect Salesforce + Shopify in minutes
    In a matter of minutes and without a single line of code, Zapier allows you to connect Salesforce and Shopify. Are you ready to find your productivity superpowers?

    I would literally lose my political soul if I decided to treat President Trump different than President Obama. (Although, I’ll note, not one Democrat criticized Obama for his executive orders.)

    I support President Trump. I supported his fight to get funding for the wall from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I share his view that we need more and better border security.

    However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.

    Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.

    NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, 14 OTHER STATES SUE TRUMP IN 9TH CIRCUIT OVER EMERGENCY DECLARATION

    I was against foreign aid and foreign intervention without a true national security threat — under Republicans and Democrats.

    I’ve stood up and voted against budgets that pile up endless debt and borrow too much — under Republicans and Democrats.

    I will stand up for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the system of checks and balances we have — under Republicans and Democrats.

    Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.

    There are really two questions involved in the decision about emergency funding. First, does statutory law allow for the president’s emergency orders, and, second, does the Constitution permit these emergency orders? As far as the statute goes, the answer is maybe — although no president has previously used emergency powers to spend money denied by Congress, and it was clearly not intended to do that.

    But there is a much larger question: the question of whether or not this power and therefore this action are constitutional. With regard to the Constitution, the Supreme Court made it very clear in Youngstown Steel in 1952, in a case that is being closely reexamined in the discussion of executive power. In Youngstown, the Court ruled that there are three kinds of executive order: orders that carry out an expressly voiced congressional position, orders where Congress’ will is unclear, and, finally, orders clearly opposed to the will of Congress.

    To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

    Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

    Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress. This turns that principle on its head.

    I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready. That was wrong. Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama. They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight.

    Some are attempting to say that there isn’t a good analogy between President Obama’s orders or the Youngstown case. I disagree. Not only are the issues similar, but I think Youngstown Steel implications are even more profound in the case of emergency appropriations. We spent the last two months debating how much money should be spent on a wall, and Congress came to a clear conclusion: $1.3 billion. Without question, the president’s order for more wall money contradicts the will of Congress and will, in all likelihood, be struck down by the Supreme Court.

    In fact, I think the president’s own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this.

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    Regardless, I must vote how my principles dictate. My oath is to the Constitution, not to any man or political party. I stand with the president often, and I do so with a loud voice. Today, I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits. I understand his frustration. Dealing with Congress can be pretty difficult sometimes. But Congress appropriates money, and his only constitutional recourse, if he does not like the amount they appropriate, is to veto the bill.

    I look forward to working for a constitutional way to deal with our border security issue.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  4. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Does that mean you will stand with Rand against Trump trying to use emergency powers for the border wall? I mean you are and Paulbot and not a Trumpbot right?

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-...cy-declaration
    en. Rand Paul: I support President Trump, but I can't support this National Emergency Declaration
    Sen. Rand Paul By Sen. Rand Paul | Fox News
    Facebook
    Twitter
    Flipboard
    Comments
    Print
    Email

    Sen. Rand Paul says he'll vote to block Trump's border emergency
    Congress poised to reject President Trump's national emergency declaration; Rich Edson reports.

    In September of 2014, I had these words to say: "The president acts like he's a king. He ignores the Constitution. He arrogantly says, 'If Congress will not act, then I must.'

    Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.”


    A Message from Zapier

    Connect Salesforce + Shopify in minutes
    In a matter of minutes and without a single line of code, Zapier allows you to connect Salesforce and Shopify. Are you ready to find your productivity superpowers?

    I would literally lose my political soul if I decided to treat President Trump different than President Obama. (Although, I’ll note, not one Democrat criticized Obama for his executive orders.)

    I support President Trump. I supported his fight to get funding for the wall from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I share his view that we need more and better border security.

    However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.

    Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.

    NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, 14 OTHER STATES SUE TRUMP IN 9TH CIRCUIT OVER EMERGENCY DECLARATION

    I was against foreign aid and foreign intervention without a true national security threat — under Republicans and Democrats.

    I’ve stood up and voted against budgets that pile up endless debt and borrow too much — under Republicans and Democrats.

    I will stand up for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the system of checks and balances we have — under Republicans and Democrats.

    Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.

    There are really two questions involved in the decision about emergency funding. First, does statutory law allow for the president’s emergency orders, and, second, does the Constitution permit these emergency orders? As far as the statute goes, the answer is maybe — although no president has previously used emergency powers to spend money denied by Congress, and it was clearly not intended to do that.

    But there is a much larger question: the question of whether or not this power and therefore this action are constitutional. With regard to the Constitution, the Supreme Court made it very clear in Youngstown Steel in 1952, in a case that is being closely reexamined in the discussion of executive power. In Youngstown, the Court ruled that there are three kinds of executive order: orders that carry out an expressly voiced congressional position, orders where Congress’ will is unclear, and, finally, orders clearly opposed to the will of Congress.

    To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

    Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

    Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress. This turns that principle on its head.

    I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready. That was wrong. Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama. They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight.

    Some are attempting to say that there isn’t a good analogy between President Obama’s orders or the Youngstown case. I disagree. Not only are the issues similar, but I think Youngstown Steel implications are even more profound in the case of emergency appropriations. We spent the last two months debating how much money should be spent on a wall, and Congress came to a clear conclusion: $1.3 billion. Without question, the president’s order for more wall money contradicts the will of Congress and will, in all likelihood, be struck down by the Supreme Court.

    In fact, I think the president’s own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this.

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    Regardless, I must vote how my principles dictate. My oath is to the Constitution, not to any man or political party. I stand with the president often, and I do so with a loud voice. Today, I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits. I understand his frustration. Dealing with Congress can be pretty difficult sometimes. But Congress appropriates money, and his only constitutional recourse, if he does not like the amount they appropriate, is to veto the bill.

    I look forward to working for a constitutional way to deal with our border security issue.
    I've supported Rand every time he has said that the executive branch has abused its power, only thing I commented on when he said that was he will get attacked for saying this because people voted for Trump because he promised to fix the immigration problem and it was the most important thing to them.

  5. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    I've supported Rand every time he has said that the executive branch has abused its power, only thing I commented on when he said that was he will get attacked for saying this because people voted for Trump because he promised to fix the immigration problem and it was the most important thing to them.
    Okay. So we can all agree then that someone can disagree with something Trump does (bumpfire ban by executive order...using emergency powers to get funding for the border wall) and not be a "Bernie Sanders" or an enemy of liberty. Good! That's progress. And for the record, even though I have said this more times than I can count, I don't support Trump being impeached. I think Amash made a mistake. I just don't think the mistake he made went against the fourth amendment. That's it.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Okay. So we can all agree then that someone can disagree with something Trump does (bumpfire ban by executive order...using emergency powers to get funding for the border wall) and not be a "Bernie Sanders" or an enemy of liberty. Good! That's progress. And for the record, even though I have said this more times than I can count, I don't support Trump being impeached. I think Amash made a mistake. I just don't think the mistake he made went against the fourth amendment. That's it.
    There is a difference between disagreeing with Trumps policy and advocating for the executive not to use or have congressional power. Its congresses job to be a check against executive power.

  8. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    There is a difference between disagreeing with Trumps policy and advocating for the executive not to use or have congressional power. Its congresses job to be a check against executive power.
    Okay. Well I disagree both with Trump's policy on the bumpfire stock ban and his abuse of power for doing it by executive order. Rand Paul disagree's with Trump's policy of sending nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia and threatening war with Iran. Both Rand and I oppose Trump when his policy is wrongheaded and when he's abusing executive power.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  9. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    My claim is that you are accusing Amash of supporting 4th Amendment violations and FISA abuses without any evidence for your charge. Since you have already proven that for me, I can rest my case.

    What I don't get is why you even keep saying it, given that you obviously don't even have any reason to believe it's true.

    Is it because you're just mindlessly repeating what some other Trumpkin told you to think? We have a lot of that around here.
    Amash regarding Trumps rights during entire Russiagate nonsense:
    Amash regarding all the criminals involved in the Russia gate coup attempt:


    Amash after Russiagate debunked: Impeach TRUMP!

  10. #188
    Amash waited for the exact right time, the time to unite the left and right in their hatred of Trump, and pooped himself.
    The diarrhea ran down his leg, and now the only people left to defend him are a small cadre of trump haters on RPF, and they keep trying to show off all his clean drawers from his dresser.

    Too late, when I think Amash, I just think of the big brown greasy splotch in the back of his pants and running down his leg.

    And dear god, that stench that will always follow him around now. He smells like the disgusting bums on the left.

  11. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    Amash waited for the exact right time, the time to unite the left and right in their hatred of Trump, and pooped himself.
    The diarrhea ran down his leg, and now the only people left to defend him are a small cadre of trump haters on RPF, and they keep trying to show off all his clean drawers from his dresser.

    Too late, when I think Amash, I just think of the big brown greasy splotch in the back of his pants and running down his leg.

    And dear god, that stench that will always follow him around now. He smells like the disgusting bums on the left.
    Are you trying to out do juleswin for most idiotic post on rpf? Or are you just off your meds again?
    "The Patriarch"

    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    Now a days the future freedoms of ones posterity is less important than the freedom today to insert what one wants into ones posterior.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    That is a lie.
    @Brian4Liberty, devil keeps spreading this lie.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I will report violations of the forum rules to the forum staff when they are egregious enough.

    You should remember that.

  12. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    Amash regarding Trumps rights during entire Russiagate nonsense:
    Amash regarding all the criminals involved in the Russia gate coup attempt:


    Amash after Russiagate debunked: Impeach TRUMP!
    So you can't find a quote either? Got it.

  13. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    So you can't find a quote either? Got it.
    All Amash willever be remembered for, no matter how much his bards try to sing of his other feats is....


    ignoring the coup based on obvious lies a bs about russia

    and trying to further the coup by claiming he sees a technicality, on the part of Trump, ignoring all the blatant, in your face violations of due process by the deep state.

    ie

    lying by omission.

    Amash thinks he is slick. He ain't. Everybody can see the greasy brwon splat on his ass... and certainly everybody can smell it.

    But please, tell me more about how clean the rest of his tighty whities are. That'll make me forget the pungent odor and sloppy river running down his trousers.

  14. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    All Amash willever be remembered for, no matter how much his bards try to sing of his other feats is....


    ignoring the coup based on obvious lies a bs about russia

    and trying to further the coup by claiming he sees a technicality, on the part of Trump, ignoring all the blatant, in your face violations of due process by the deep state.

    ie

    lying by omission.

    Amash thinks he is slick. He ain't. Everybody can see the greasy brwon splat on his ass... and certainly everybody can smell it.

    But please, tell me more about how clean the rest of his tighty whities are. That'll make me forget the pungent odor and sloppy river running down his trousers.
    Talkin' about yourself again?
    There is no spoon.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Talkin' about yourself again?
    OMG personal insult! Quick, call a moderator!

  17. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    All Amash willever be remembered for, no matter how much his bards try to sing of his other feats is....


    ignoring the coup based on obvious lies a bs about russia

    and trying to further the coup by claiming he sees a technicality, on the part of Trump, ignoring all the blatant, in your face violations of due process by the deep state.

    ie

    lying by omission.

    Amash thinks he is slick. He ain't. Everybody can see the greasy brwon splat on his ass... and certainly everybody can smell it.

    But please, tell me more about how clean the rest of his tighty whities are. That'll make me forget the pungent odor and sloppy river running down his trousers.
    Moral of the story? Be like Trump and wantonly attack the 4th amendment on a consistent basis then only raise it as a defense for yourself and your adoring public will love you because "muh wall."
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  18. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Moral of the story? Be like Trump and wantonly attack the 4th amendment on a consistent basis then only raise it as a defense for yourself and your adoring public will love you because "muh wall."
    Or he could be more like Ron Paul.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  19. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Or he could be more like Ron Paul.
    Trump could be? Yes. I wish he would be. Instead we're getting bumpfire stock bans, 1,000 troops sent to threaten Iran, pulling out of an Iran deal that both Ron and Rand support, sale of advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia etc.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  20. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    OMG personal insult! Quick, call a moderator!
    You messin' with muh free speech, Dude?
    There is no spoon.

  21. #198
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Trump could be? Yes. I wish he would be. Instead we're getting bumpfire stock bans, 1,000 troops sent to threaten Iran, pulling out of an Iran deal that both Ron and Rand support, sale of advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia etc.
    Yes, it would be great if everybody was like Ron Paul. But I was talking about Justin Amash. Not that he is far off in general.. but where he went off the reservation he was WAYY off base. Maybe he will get re-elected, maybe it will help him get re-elected. In that case, I'm totally ok with it. He knows his district better than me. But if this ends up hurting him or the liberty movement as a whole, that is no good.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  22. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Yes, it would be great if everybody was like Ron Paul. But I was talking about Justin Amash. Not that he is far off in general.. but where he went off the reservation he was WAYY off base. Maybe he will get re-elected, maybe it will help him get re-elected. In that case, I'm totally ok with it. He knows his district better than me. But if this ends up hurting him or the liberty movement as a whole, that is no good.
    I agree. Especially with the last sentence. Impeachment is a losing proposition. Even Nancy Pelosi knows this.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  23. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    These are two separate issues. Like I told @Swordsmyth.

    Also, to be honest the "fruit from a poisonous tree" doctrine doesn't apply to obstruction. That's a crime committed after the start of an investigation. In a regular criminal proceeding if police found evidence against you from a bogus investigation (such as actual evidence of collusion with the Russians in witness tampering) that evidence would be squashed. But evidence that you tampered with witnesses during the investigation would not be squashed. So...technically in a real criminal proceeding, Trump could be held liable for obstruction even based on a phony FISA warrant. But, like I said, this isn't really a criminal proceeding.
    You can't obstruct an illegal investigation because it has no authority, that may not be quite the same as "the fruit of a poisonous tree" but it works out the same.

    And impeachment is still bound by the Constitution and the rights of the accused:

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    President Trump has said that if the House were to impeach him despite his not having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” he might seek review of such an unconstitutional action in the Supreme Court. On April 24, he tweeted that if “the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only are there no 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors,' there are no Crimes by me at all.”
    Yesterday, when asked by a reporter if he thinks Congress will impeach him, the president responded, “I don’t see how. They can because they’re possibly allowed, although I can’t imagine the courts allowing it.”
    Commentators have accused Trump of not understanding the way impeachment works and have stated quite categorically that the courts have no constitutional role to play in what is solely a congressional and political process. Time magazine declared in a headline “That’s Not How It Works,” and Vox called the president’s argument “profoundly confused.”


    Scholars also echoed the derision. The influential legal blog Lawfare wrote confidently that “The Supreme Court Has No Role in Impeachment,” and my friend and colleague Larry Tribe, an eminent constitutional law scholar, called Trump’s argument simply “idiocy,” explaining that “the court is very good at slapping down attempts to drag things out by bringing it into a dispute where it has no jurisdiction.”
    Not so fast. Our nonlawyer president may be closer to the truth than his lawyer critics. In fact, the Lawfare blog noted that “Trump’s suggestion of resorting to the Supreme Court to appeal an impeachment did not come out of nowhere. ... Alan Dershowitz recently made an argument along the same lines, writing in an essay on ‘The Case Against Impeaching Trump’ that ‘[w]ere a president to announce that he refused to accept the actions of the Senate in voting for his removal … and that he would not leave office unless the Supreme Court affirmed his removal, the people might well agree with him.’”
    However, my argument did not come from nowhere, either.
    Two former, well-respected justices of the Supreme Court first suggested that the judiciary may indeed have a role in reining in Congress were it to exceed its constitutional authority. Justice Byron White, a John F. Kennedy appointee, put it this way: “Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibility because the Senate has precipitated a crisis.”
    Justice David Souter, a George H. W. Bush appointee, echoed his predecessor: “If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results … judicial interference might well be appropriate.”


    It is not too much of a stretch from the kind of constitutional crises imagined by these learned justices to a crisis caused by a Congress that impeached a president without evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The president is not above the law, but neither is Congress, whose members take an oath to support, not subvert, the Constitution. And that Constitution does not authorize impeachment for anything short of high crimes and misdemeanors.
    Were Congress to try to impeach and remove a president without alleging and proving any such crime, and were the president to refuse to leave office on the ground that Congress had acted unconstitutionally, there would indeed be such a constitutional crisis. And Supreme Court precedent going back to Marbury v. Madison empowers the justices to resolve conflicts between the executive and legislative branches by applying the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
    Recall that when a president has been impeached by the House, the Supreme Court’s chief justice presides at his Senate trial and the senators take a special oath. This special oath requires each senator to swear or affirm that “in all things pertaining to the trial … [to] do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the law” (italics added).
    If the House were to impeach for a noncrime, the president’s lawyer could make a motion to the chief justice to dismiss the case, just as a lawyer for an ordinary defendant can make a motion to dismiss an indictment that did not charge a crime. The chief justice would be asked to enforce the senatorial oath by dismissing an impeachment that violated the words of the Constitution. There is no assurance that the chief justice would rule on such a motion, but it is certainly possible.

    More at: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...al-impeachment


    Another lie bites the dust.

    Impeachment isn't "political" and free from the requirements of Due Process or the rest of the BoR.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Yes, it would be great if everybody was like Ron Paul. But I was talking about Justin Amash. Not that he is far off in general.. but where he went off the reservation he was WAYY off base. Maybe he will get re-elected, maybe it will help him get re-elected. In that case, I'm totally ok with it. He knows his district better than me. But if this ends up hurting him or the liberty movement as a whole, that is no good.
    Truthfully, I'm still trying to figure out what the hell he was thinking. But I'm not ready to throw him under the bus despite all the trumpertarian apoplexy going on here. The good far outweighs the bad in my opinion.
    "The Patriarch"

    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    Now a days the future freedoms of ones posterity is less important than the freedom today to insert what one wants into ones posterior.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    That is a lie.
    @Brian4Liberty, devil keeps spreading this lie.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I will report violations of the forum rules to the forum staff when they are egregious enough.

    You should remember that.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 94
    Last Post: 05-07-2017, 10:53 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-20-2014, 01:48 PM
  3. Replies: 66
    Last Post: 11-08-2012, 12:22 PM
  4. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 08-25-2012, 04:45 AM
  5. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 08-25-2012, 04:45 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •