Who makes foreign policy in the USA?

[Kuciwalker]

Imran: TEH SUPREME COURT IS ALWAYS RIGHT, therefore you may never make any constitutional arguments EVER. Not before the court rules, because then there's no law, and not after, because then they've decided already decided it.

[Ramo]

Only if you ignore half the decision.

Which half?

[Berzerker]

And IMO the "the Supreme Court is always right" argument is a stupid cop-out people use when they don't feel like actually defending the constitutionality of something.

Yup

Thats what Imran does when he's losing a debate, he trots that line out as if we dont already know.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Pelosi is the Democratic version of Gingrich...

Funny the points they seem to want to score are simply burying themselves deeper considering everyone on this board pretty much roundly condemns Gingrich's behavior during that particular period of Bubba's administration.

Good show .....

...........Misguided Strawman Arguements

...........Own Goal

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Jesus, Imran, it's this ****ing simple: Pelosi endorses a law I think is plainly unconstitutional. If you think that's an invalid criticism you're too dumb to be worth arguing with. Go play with Ludd or someone else who's needlessly contrarian.

The original statement by Ned was that people who voted for Democrats are probably disappointed because they wanted someone more respectful of the Constitution. The point being that Pelosi and the other Dems DO think they have a valid constitutional argument for their POV. The Supreme Court is the one who decides if something is constitutional or not, so therefore, it is silly to say that Pelosi is not being respectful of the Constitution... or "violating the Constitution" (which is in no way a loaded phrase) by backing a law which may indeed be upheld by the courts!

Your opinion on the constitutionality of the law doesn't matter one whit. You can think the other person has a different interpretation of the constitutionality of a law without thinking they are not respectful of the Constitution or violating said Constitution if they pass a law that you don't think will pass muster.

I did address the main point. Your assertion is nothing more than a pedantic attempt to distract from the inanity of your main argument.

No, it's actually an important point. Violating the Constitution is contrary to the oath of office. If you really believe that passing a law that you believe is unconstitutional (or hell, the the Supreme Court strikes down) is that individual violating the Constitution, then why does it not have reprecussions on their oath. Because, passing a bill that may be struck down does not equal that the person was violating the Constitution in passing the bill.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

No, it's actually an important point. Violating the Constitution is contrary to the oath of office. If you really believe that passing a law that you believe is unconstitutional (or hell, the the Supreme Court strikes down) is that individual violating the Constitution, then why does it not have reprecussions on their oath. Because, passing a bill that may be struck down does not equal that the person was violating the Constitution in passing the bill.

Thats a fair cop. Each branch is entitled their opportunity to interpret the constitution (and is obliged to do so by virtue of their oath). Failing to interpret the constitution and merely punt these things to SCOTUS however is an abrogation of responsibilities. Both executive and legislative seem to do this all too often. Case and point Bush's signing statement on McCain/Feingold, where in he said he was signing a law that violated 1st amendment rights but decided to let the courts decide. (Schmuck fulfill your oath of interpreting the constitution.)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The original statement by Ned was that people who voted for Democrats are probably disappointed because they wanted someone more respectful of the Constitution.

And I seem to have proved his point.

The point being that Pelosi and the other Dems DO think they have a valid constitutional argument for their POV.

1. Bull****. How do you know Pelosi actually believes the weak constitutional arguments? IMO it's just political pandering, nothing more, with no possible negative consequences because it'll be Bush or the courts to shoot it down.

2. Even if she does believe, all that makes her is a tool, because the arguments are weak.

The Supreme Court is the one who decides if something is constitutional or not, so therefore, it is silly to say that Pelosi is not being respectful of the Constitution... or "violating the Constitution" (which is in no way a loaded phrase) by backing a law which may indeed be upheld by the courts!

For the last goddamn time: we are allowed to make assertions about constitutionality absent a court decision. We are even allowed to make such assertions given a contrary court decision.

Your opinion on the constitutionality of the law doesn't matter one whit.

Nor does your opinion on my opinion on the constitutionality of the law. We are in the ****ing Off-Topic Forum. We're allowed to argue about things we can't possibly influence.

No, it's actually an important point. Violating the Constitution is contrary to the oath of office.

Only if you are needlessly pedantic. It's fairly obvious that some things that might be called "violating the constitution" don't allow us to take any action against the perpetrator.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
1. Bull****. How do you know Pelosi actually believes the weak constitutional arguments? IMO it's just political pandering, nothing more, with no possible negative consequences because it'll be Bush or the courts to shoot it down.

2. Even if she does believe, all that makes her is a tool, because the arguments are weak.

I will take her at her word. And what does it matter if the arguments are weak, if they stand up? And they well may. The arguments were fairly week for the side that ended up winning in Griswold v. Connecticut about a right to privacy in the Constitution, but they won.

For the last goddamn time: we are allowed to make assertions about constitutionality absent a court decision. We are even allowed to make such assertions given a contrary court decision.

Make all the assertions you want, but using your subjective assertions to tar someone as not being respectful of the Constitution is, IMO, ludicrous. People with opposing assertions about constitutionality can be just as respectful of the Constitution.

For instance, I don't agree with some of Senator McCain's views on the Constitution, but I would never refer to him as not respectful of the Constitution even if he would champion a law that I'd personally wish was struck down by the courts.

Only if you are needlessly pedantic. It's fairly obvious that some things that might be called "violating the constitution" don't allow us to take any action against the perpetrator.

Why not? Why shouldn't violating your oath of office be a cause for recall?

[Kuciwalker]

I will take her at her word.

Why?

And what does it matter if the arguments are weak, if they stand up?

They don't, duh. The opposing side's arguments are stronger. The courts could certainly make a mistake though.

Make all the assertions you want, but using your subjective assertions to tar someone as not being respectful of the Constitution is, IMO, ludicrous.

And arguing that I shouldn't care if elected representatives try to pass laws that blatantly violate the Constitution is, IMO, ludicrous.

For instance, I don't agree with some of Senator McCain's views on the Constitution, but I would never refer to him as not respectful of the Constitution even if he would champion a law that I'd personally wish was struck down by the courts.

Presumably because you think McCain is a) sincere in his belief and b) is not completely absurd in his constitutional arguments.

I think neither of Pelosi.

Why not? Why shouldn't violating your oath of office be a cause for recall?

Because it impinges too much on legislative freedom to subject them to legal consequences of their votes. Duh.

[Dinner]

Here's another interesting observation which is on topic. Wingnuts have been throwing a tizzy about Pelosi wearing a hajib (a scarf covering her hair) but Pelosi isn't the only US official putting on a hajib during visits to the mid-east. See if you recognize the people in these photos:





Why if it isn't Laura Bush & Condi Rice!

On a more serious note I do think the hajib is repressive and that people should speak out against it but if someone honestly wants to wear it without being pressured then I guess it's ok. I do note that Russian politicians who speak perfect English still speak Russian in press confrences though just to make a point that they're representing Russia. I would like to see American politicans/appointees dress in an American manner so that it is clear they're representing America and American values. In the end the hot air the wingnuts are wasting on this nonissue is just funny though.

[Ecthy]

Though I haven't followed the thread closely, I'd like to add for fairness that Condi Rice forms a part of the executive branch as opposed to Pelosi, and Laura is a person very close to the head of that branch. Both seem more eligible.

[Dinner]

Well we're at it salon.com has this interesting article about Pelosi's trip; specifically it deals with who is mainstream and who is fringe in America today. It's a good read.

Glenn Greenwald
Friday April 6, 2007 10:35 EST
The American media's fringe ideological view of Pelosi's trip

(updated below - Update II - Update III)

The media's hysteria-driven coverage of Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria is a real clarifying moment. As Greg Sargent notes (with video), it actually prompted CNN's increasingly absurd Suzanne Malveaux to ask: "And, Nancy Pelosi in Syria and in the crosshairs of Vice President Cheney. Is she on her way to becoming the most controversial House Speaker yet?" For doing what?

The American media, taking its cues from the Limbaugh/Cheney/AEI faction -- the world in which negotiating with a country like Syria is some sort of radical and highly "controversial" idea -- simply does not recognize how isolated and on the fringe this right-wing faction is, a fact which even the faction itself is beginning to acknowledge. Today, National Review's Rich Lowry warns of what he says is a scary group that is "on the verge of becoming the most significant force in the West, one that perhaps will shape our world for years, even decades, to come":

It is the Capitulation Caucus.

Its membership consists of most nationally elected Democrats in the United States, much of the American foreign-policy elite, the balance of the U.S. media, most international bureaucrats and nongovernmental organizations, and the European political elite.

They are loosely united around their beliefs that the Iraq War is lost or not worth trying to win, that we have to accommodate ourselves to anti-Western thugs in the Middle East and that the United States today is a reckless, malign influence in the world.

It sounds like the Capitulation Caucus pretty much includes everyone other than Sean Hannity, Dick Cheney, Michael Ledeen and Lowry. And Lowry forgot one other part of the Capitulation Caucus: the majority of the American people, who clearly share the subversive Capitulation agenda.

Lowry's colleague, Cliff May, this week had what he complained was a day-long exchange with readers of this blog over his false statements about American public opinion regarding foreign policy. But to May's credit, he now consequently seems to have recognized the reality which the American media is apparently incapable of ingesting -- namely, that it is May and his warmongering comrades who are the fringe. May -- citing the polling data (i.e., reality) with which he was bombarded this week -- acknowledged in his latest Townhall column (h/t sysprog):

We like to think of our politicians as leaders but most are followers: They do what they think the voters want them to do (that's the smoothest path to political power), and they divine the will of those voters by reading polls.

Back in November, even after the Democrats bested Republicans in the elections, it was assumed that most Americans would be furious over any attempt to de-fund troops engaged in combat. But recent polls, taken by such organizations as Pew, CNN and the Washington Post suggest that a substantial number of voters no longer see it that way: Confidence in the possibility of salvaging a successful outcome in Iraq is running low; support for Congress legislating a specific date when American troops will come home is running high.

The warmongering Right that the American media venerates and depicts as the mainstream is, in reality, an ever-shrinking fringe group. Other than the right-wing spectrum in Israel, their mentality and worldview really does not really exist anywhere else in the world, certainly not to any meaningful degree. It is a way of thinking that is widely scorned and discredited around the world -- that our country has been ruled by them is precisely why America's standing in the world is at an all-time and dangerous low point -- and their mindset really is confined strictly to (shrinking) right-wing elements in the U.S. and Israel (along with the Australian Prime Minister).

The idea that we should use military force against Iran, or simply refuse to negotiate with Iran and Syria, or stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue to wage war there, or that a visiting politician's decision to wear culturally appropriate clothing when visiting a mosque is a sign that we are about to live under Islamic law and submit to our new Al Qaeda Rulers -- those ideas come from a fringe and radical group which lies outside of mainstream thought both in the West and around the world, yet those are the ideas that comprise the American media's dominant narrative.

A very astute blogger recently travelled abroad for the first time in several years, and was in England during the time Iran was detaining the British sailors. She sent me an e-mail which included this observation, one which is indisputably true for anyone who pays substantial attention to foreign media:

Even though I didn't bring a laptop and I was sightseeing and visiting as many museums and Shakespeare's Globe Theatre, etc ... as I could, I still couldn't help hearing the news about the soldiers. It was unavoidable.

What I did not hear was anything resembling the bloodthristy right-wing rantings I (correctly) imagined were being broadcast over here. Perhaps if I paid closer attention to the news while I was there I would have heard something unreasonable, but in my limited exposure to the television, it was nothing -- nothing -- like what you were probably hearing.

This cheap, artificial, mindless Charles Krauthammer/Bill Kristol/Ann Coulter/Dick Cheney chest-beating faux-warrior-against-the-world mentality is now really a distinctly fringe American phenomenon. It does not even exist to any substantial degree in one of America's closest allies, Britain, the country historically most closely aligned with American political thought.

And yet the crux of our American media is beholden to that group, takes its cues from it, and treats it like it defines the mainstream. Hence, Nancy Pelosi's belief in engaging the Syrians in dialogue -- a belief endorsed by, among others: (a) the uber-establishment Baker-Hamilton Commission, (b) the Israeli government, and (c) the vast majority of American people ("By 64% to 28%, respondents favored the group's recommendation to open direct talks with Iran and Syria") -- is, in American Media Land, depicted as some sort of radical and fringe idea, something which threatens to make Nancy Pelosi, two months after she took office, "the most controversial House Speaker yet."

Of course, the American media has been working overtime to depict Pelosi as a failed and weak joke before she even was inaugurated (recall the grave, grave crisis over whether Jane Harman would become Intelligence Committee Chair -- have any of the Very Serious Pundits who exploited that very grave matter to suggest that Pelosi's leadership was "crippled" even mentioned the name "Silvestre Reyes" a single time or written a word about the House Intelligence Committee, once the fun, gossipy, petty, manufactured "Pelosi scandal" over the Harman-Hasting drama went nowhere? Highly doubtful).

It is staggering just how out of touch and frivolous our media is. Just contemplate all the substantive scandals during the Bush presidency which they have all but ignored -- they could barely contain their scornful, bored indifference over the fact that the U.S. Attorney General repeatedly lied to Congress about why federal prosecutors were suddenly fired -- but they can hardly contain their giddiness and their compulsive and bizarre cattiness over an event (Pelosi's meeting with Syrian leaders) that, to the normal world, is completely natural and mundane. But the media lives in the Limbaugh/Hannity/Cheney world (Matt Drudge rules it), and in that world, what is in reality fringe and discredited is, to them, the barometer of mainstream.

UPDATE: This video posted by Think Progress is just amazing: Matt Lauer and Tim Russert -- citing the condemnations by such ideologically diverse and objective sources as Dick Cheney, Fred Hiatt, and the Wall. St Journal Editorial Page (which, as Lauer noted, suggested Pelosi's trip might be a "felony") -- sit around lamenting what a grave mistake Pelosi made, call her trip "irresponsible" and "incompetent," and worry oh-so-much about how damaging this will be to Democrats in the eyes of "the American people" ("By 64% to 28%, respondents favored the group's recommendation to open direct talks with Iran and Syria").

It's a two-minute tribute to the fact-free idiocy of our media stars.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/06/pelosi_trip/index.html

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Though I haven't followed the thread closely, I'd like to add for fairness that Condi Rice forms a part of the executive branch as opposed to Pelosi, and Laura is a person very close to the head of that branch. Both seem more eligible.

To wear a hajib?

[Ned]

Oerdin, it seems clear that Glenn Greenwood doesn't get out much and talk to anyone who doesn't share his world view.

[Dinner]

It does seem like a very partisan article and salon is known for posting a lot of partisan stuff. Glen does make an interesting point about the positions people like Sean Hannity, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Ledeen and Lowry taken though. That is these people are extremely far from the center and far from what the polls say the American people want.