T
train
Guest
"I have the paddle... passed down from ancestor, to ancestor, to ancestor, to ancestor, to ancestor, to ancestor, to ancestor, to me..."
You must not have read the section of the constitution dealing with impeachements then...Originally posted by Oversoul
I do not think the United States was founded on the principle that "When the President of the United States promises under oath to defend and uphold the constitution, he better mean it or catch a bus out of town after his impeachment trial."
uhm, you might mean that the land and the colonies were around, or that there was a loose federation of colonies fighting together against england.Originally posted by train
The United States was founded before the constitution was written...
You said it yourself - "didn't exist with a government"...The United States as a Federation didn't exist with a Government untill the Constitution was written
Going back to your original essay of foolishness, concerning the patriot act. You clearly demonstrate you have little knowledge of what actually was in place before 9/11. The tenents of the patriot act in the language we know them today already existed, what the patriot act did was make enforcement of them broader. For instance in the past if the CIA was conducting an investigation and the FBI wanted to conduct an investigation on the same person they could not by law share information now they can. This is the infamous "wall" constructed by the Clintons. Or in the past if the FBI wanted to search your house, place of business and gym locker they had to get 3 seperate warrants now they have only to prove for one warrant to cover all 3. The patriot act does not usurp new ground it simply allows a better flow of information and faster action on existing law.Originally posted by Donkey Rhubarb
uhm, you might mean that the land and the colonies were around, or that there was a loose federation of colonies fighting together against england.
The United States as a Federation didn't exist with a Government untill the Constitution was written.
Most of your post is opinion, and while I can disagree with it on principle, you're entitled to it.Originally posted by Bgdawg
Bush was acting on existing UN authority.
I think they do already.On the flip side of that U.S. companies should have dibs on contracts.
You might have misunderstood my question which you seemed to have corrected in the edit part of your post, but in regards to this, also consider the US is deliberating withholding their portion of UN funding so it comes back to the US is contributing less than they should anyway. And there are plenty of UN peacekeeping missions where the US is neither involved militarily or minorly so, so THAT part doesn't matter either.Well considering the U.S. supplies 25% of U.N. funding, and formerly 31% of ALL U.N. peacekeeping funding, now down to 25% I don't really see how that's a valid statement. Also considering the fact that the U.S. is without a doubt the military muscle of the U.N. (only the U.S., Britain and to a limited degree France can project power) I don't see how your statement holds water.
"Ignoring the will" and "acting on fact" are two different things...Bush blatantly ignored the collective will of the U.N. by invading Iraq - Istanbul
But in this case he did neither.Originally posted by train
"Ignoring the will" and "acting on fact" are two different things...