When is a coup legal?

[Arrian]

[Darius871]

No Darius, I don't have support for either side.

1) That wasn't my question. My question was how you reconcile [your stated belief that legislative and judicial bureaucrats are better gauges of what "the people" in Honduras want than the voter referendum proposed by Zelaya would have been] with [your previously stated belief that Article 5 Amendments passed by legislatures and upheld by the judiciary aren't valid without approval by "the people," which means a referendum]. The two positions are fundamentally at odds. Can you see that?

2) You also explicitly stated that "if you want to know, the population has a majority against Zelaya" on this issue, and I asked how you obtained this information that has apparently been kept secret from everybody else. I'm genuinely curious. Was there a poll or something?

Explain how the Federal Reserve System can be Constitutional if, only the Congress of the U.S., which comprises of the Senate and the House of Representatives has the power to coin and issue our money supply and regulate the value thereof? [Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8] Nowhere, in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation or, does it?

1) That wasn't my question. You explicitly stated that the Fed was improper for the not-constitutionally-related reason that the legislature and judiciary have failed to "heed the call of the people" for its dismantling, which necessarily implies that a majority of the citizenry wants it dismantled in the first place. I'm genuinely curious how you became aware of this silent majority. Was there a poll or something?



2) But since you brought up constitutionality out of the blue, I'll go ahead and bite. "Nowhere in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation" you say? False. The first two Banks of the United States and the later Federal Reserve system were legislatively created and judicially upheld on the basis of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:

The Congress shall have power to...make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....articlei.html

The implication of this Necessary and Proper Clause is that Congress is free to choose whatever means it finds most likely to succeed in accomplishing a power explicitly granted by the Constitution (such as the power to issue currency), and those means are up to and including delegating some regulatory authority to executive branch agencies and even independent agencies created by Congress. If Congress decided that an independent agency funding its budget from infusions by member banks that benefit from its services (note I said "independent agency," not "private corporation," which the Fed is not) would have higher degrees of economic expertise and transactional confidentiality than an element of the executive branch would have, then that delegation of authority is within its power under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Since you claim to be an aficionado of the Federalist Papers, which I doubt, I highly recommend that you re-read Madison's Federalist 44 expounding on the importance and intended meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause. I also recommend that you read pieces on the controversy surrounding the First Bank of the United States, which was ultimately created in 1791 by the same Founding Fathers you claim to revere. Finally, and most importantly, I recommend that you read every last letter of McCullough v. Maryland, in which the SCOTUS decided on the definitive interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause, which did allow Congress to delegate its constitutional authority to an independent agency or even corporate entity.

Much more has been written about this topic, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to sit and educate you on finer points of constitutional jurisprudence that many work their asses off to pay thousands of dollars to learn. I especially don't want to take the time when I already know you'll automatically write off anything you disagree with as mere "usurpation" by more "liberal" judges and politicians, even though Federalist 44, McCullough, and related texts originated from the same minds that had a hand in drafting the Constitution, almost two centuries before the word "liberal" even took on the distorted meaning it has today. In fact, I'll even predict that you think Marbury v. Madison was a wrongly decided usurpation of interpretive powers left to "the people," or if you haven't ever even read Marbury cover to cover (which is probably the case), I'm sure you'd automatically reject it if you did. Therefore, I'm sure the SCOTUS' interpretations of the Necessary and Proper Clause are meaningless to you anyway, because the SCOTUS has no power to interpret it in the first place, right? Or perhaps any sites reporting the verbatim text of SCOTUS decisions can just be disregarded as distortion by the "liberal media" and not what John Marshall really wrote, right? If you seriously think McCullough got the Necessary and Proper Clause totally wrong, or that Marbury gave the SCOTUS powers it shouldn't have had in the first place, will you at least be consistent and tell us all today that the FDIC, USPS, FNMA, GNMA, FAMC, FHLMC, FTC, SEC, CFTC, FEC, FCC, NLRB, FERC, and other "independent agencies" not part of the executive are all unconstitutional and must be dismantled immediately?


PLEASE NOTE THAT MANY SENTENCES IN MY POST ARE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY QUESTION MARKS. THIS MEANS THAT I'M ACTUALLY ASKING YOU FOR YOUR OPINION ON A SPECIFIC ISSUE, AND I AM HOPING FOR SPECIFIC ANSWERS IN RESPONSE TO THOSE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. IDEALLY, YOU MIGHT EVEN USE THE "QUOTE" FUNCTION TO IDENTIFY THE QUESTIONS TO WHICH YOU RESPOND IN A SEQUENTIAL FASHION, AS I HAVE. I EVEN NUMBERED MY POINTS TO MAKE THE QUOTING PROCESS EASIER FOR YOU. AGAIN, JUST TO BE 100% CRYSTAL CLEAR, I AM NOT NOT NOT ASKING YOU FOR A GENERALIZED RANT WHICH TOUCHES ON SOME QUESTIONS BUT NOT OTHERS, OR ON NO QUESTIONS AT ALL, BUT RATHER AN ANSWER TO EACH SPECIFIC SENTENCE THAT IS FOLLOWED BY A QUESTION MARK. JUST ANSWER EACH QUESTION DIRECTLY. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, I'M ****ING BEGGING YOU, JUST DIRECTLY RESPOND TO EACH SPECIFIC QUESTION WITHOUT RANTING IN A GENERAL WAY. PRETTY PRETTY PLEASE WITH A CHERRY ON TOP, JUST ANSWER MY QUESTIONS.

[Traianvs]

funny.

he baited you real good didn't he?

[Darius871]

[Kuciwalker]

[Docfeelgood]

[zakubandit]

It's like the UN! Chinese, Chilean, Brazilian, Honduran...just no $*&%ing MEXICANS.

Well you seem keyed onto other things I have said, but did you neglect the fact I said before...that my wife is Mexican? Her mother came over legally, as did her grandmother *grandfather from LA*. And she takes the same stance as I do on criminal aliens.

[Docfeelgood]

Well you seem keyed onto other things I have said, but did you neglect the fact I said before...that my wife is Mexican? Her mother came over legally, as did her grandmother *grandfather from LA*. And she takes the same stance as I do on criminal aliens.

She is only mexican if she was born in mexico.

[zakubandit]

Your not asking my opinion, you could care less what I say, think, quote, mark, note, highlight, or anything else. Does it matter that Jackson dismantled the 2nd bank because it was doing the exact same things that are happening now (though now both the pres and fed are doing it at the same time, read some history) [Panic of 1837]. It doesnt matter to you what I have read or what I haven't, because all I am going to get either way, even if I directly quote something, will be that I am stupid and I must not be able to read. So no, **** you, we swayed from the entire point of this thread. And as Lorizael seemed to have made clear to me before is that as long as we stay on topic he doesnt give a **** what you all say to me. So **** you, stay on topic, I won't say **** anymore unless it has to do with if the coup was legal or not. It was passed by their Supreme Court and Congress to remove the president of Honduras from office. 2 branches saw the unbalancing of power and moved to ensure the continuity of their freedoms and laws, they did what they had to do. Stick to this, **** everything else, you want to debate me in what is right and wrong on everything else then YOU start a new thread, or any of the hate monger sheeple that also despise me and everyone not on their side of the house.

[Docfeelgood]

Your not asking my opinion, you could care less what I say, think, quote, mark, note, highlight, or anything else. Does it matter that Jackson dismantled the 2nd bank because it was doing the exact same things that are happening now (though now both the pres and fed are doing it at the same time, read some history) [Panic of 1837]. It doesnt matter to you what I have read or what I haven't, because all I am going to get either way, even if I directly quote something, will be that I am stupid and I must not be able to read. So no, **** you, we swayed from the entire point of this thread. And as Lorizael seemed to have made clear to me before is that as long as we stay on topic he doesnt give a **** what you all say to me. So **** you, stay on topic, I won't say **** anymore unless it has to do with if the coup was legal or not. It was passed by their Supreme Court and Congress to remove the president of Honduras from office. 2 branches saw the unbalancing of power and moved to ensure the continuity of their freedoms and laws, they did what they had to do. Stick to this, **** everything else, you want to debate me in what is right and wrong on everything else then YOU start a new thread, or any of the hate monger sheeple that also despise me and everyone not on their side of the house.

[zakubandit]

She is only mexican if she was born in mexico.

Sorry, Mexican descent.

[Serb]

When is a coup legal?

When it is successful.

[Darius871]

Does it matter that Jackson dismantled the 2nd bank because it was doing the exact same things that are happening now (though now both the pres and fed are doing it at the same time, read some history) [Panic of 1837].

No it does not, because dismantling that bank was a matter of policy, just like the failings of the Fed today are a matter of policy. In fact, as a strictly policy matter, I'd probably agree with you about the Fed more than you think. However, constitutionality is another issue entirely, and naturally you evade it entirely with this red herring. Figures.

It doesnt matter to you what I have read or what I haven't, because all I am going to get either way, even if I directly quote something, will be that I am stupid and I must not be able to read.

Funny you should say that, seeing as I'm practically the only person who hasn't yet called you stupid, or cast any other insult (other than perhaps an overall tone of bewildered incredulity). I was trying to stay above that, because I was seriously interested in what you had to say. But fine, feel free to lump me in with everybody else anyway, even though I'm just making arguments and asking questions, and you're afraid to give answers to either. I can only conclude that you're just the sort of ****ing gutless coward that I'd expect from an armor MOS.

[zakubandit]

****ing gutless coward that I'd expect from an armor MOS.

****ing gutless coward that you'd expect from an armor MOS huh. Hmm. Did you volunteer? Did you go over there? Who's more of the gutless coward, the man that at 17 volunteered to go to war, or the man that calls the volunteer a coward when having never volunteered them self? Now if you have, I retract my remark, more power to you, most likely your a scout and in which friendly rivalry is always apparent. Or infantry, and in which infantry are fondly called crunchies for good reason. Don't Darius, just don't. Talk down to those that defend you is the worst way you can prove that your un-American. Don't be a Sheehan.

You may not have called me names, slandered me, or questioned my knowledge but you are well on that path. I am leaving everything not to do with the legality of the coup to blow with the dust, as per Lorizael already saying he would prefer we stay on topic. Want to debate the legality of the private corporation/federal extension agency we call the Fed, make a new thread and we can butt heads there.

[Darius871]

****ing gutless coward that you'd expect from an armor MOS huh. Hmm. Did you volunteer? Did you go over there? Who's more of the gutless coward, the man that at 17 volunteered to go to war, or the man that calls the volunteer a coward when having never volunteered them self? Now if you have, I retract my remark, more power to you, most likely your a scout and in which friendly rivalry is always apparent. Or infantry, and in which infantry are fondly called crunchies for good reason. Don't Darius, just don't. Talk down to those that defend you is the worst way you can prove that your un-American. Don't be a Sheehan.

Yeah sure, go cry yourself to sleep because the beers in the tank weren't cold enough.

You may not have called me names, slandered me, or questioned my knowledge but you are well on that path. I am leaving everything not to do with the legality of the coup to blow with the dust, as per Lorizael already saying he would prefer we stay on topic. Want to debate the legality of the private corporation/federal extension agency we call the Fed, make a new thread and we can butt heads there.

You'll note that YOU were the first person to mention the Fed in this thread, not me (don't believe me? just use the ctrl-F function on this thread for the word "Fed" and lo and behold, YOUR post #5 was the first to touch on it), so I'm not the one responsible for going off-topic. You are. You'll also note that part of the post you ignored was completely on-topic, asking you what proof you have to back up your bald-faced assertion that a majority of Hondurans were opposed to the referendum. How is that not relevant to the Honduran coup topic? Naturally you've avoided responding to that ON-TOPIC question, because you are full of ****. But fine, I'll gladly make a new thread on the tangent YOU started, just to watch you run and hide as usual.