Awww... poor republicans Options

[pebkac]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/...-gop-stage.html

Wow... the democrats finally stand up to the republicans and now they're acting like children.

[Dogmeat]

well at least the fucking republicans are doing everything they can do destroy islam in the midde east before that horse shit makes its way into our fucked up society even more than it already has and ruins whats left of freedom of speech and relegion.

[Psykopath]

well at least the fucking republicans are doing everything they can do destroy islam in the midde east before that horse shit makes its way into our fucked up society even more than it already has and ruins whats left of freedom of speech and religion.

Your political leanings make me sick if this is what you truly believe.

(and thought I'd fix that spelling...second time I've seen you put it that way, heh)

This post has been edited by Psykopath: Feb 14 2008, 09:49 PM

[Hartmann]

What's funny is that others have summoned the Democrats to walk out: http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exe...ew.cgi/48/17144

And then of course there's the Texas Democrats that did walk out: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/13/...ture/index.html

So I guess there's childishness on both sides.

My question is, you're ok with Congress, yes Congress writing resolutions to hold people in contempt? Doesn't that overstep the bounds a bit?

[pebkac]

What's funny is that others have summoned the Democrats to walk out: http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exe...ew.cgi/48/17144

And then of course there's the Texas Democrats that did walk out: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/13/...ture/index.html

So I guess there's childishness on both sides.

My question is, you're ok with Congress, yes Congress writing resolutions to hold people in contempt? Doesn't that overstep the bounds a bit?

I don't think I've ever come even close to claiming that the Democrats are perfect.

And no, that doesn't overlap bounds. I forget exactly where it is, but the Constitution does give Congress the ability to act as a tribunal inferior to the Supreme Court.

[impala454]

"They're more interested in a political witch hunt than in keeping America more secure before they leave Washington for a week," Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla.

Couldn't have said it better myself

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., says that when it comes to the surveillance bill, Republicans are engaged in the "politics of fear, unfounded fear."

Yeah, unfounded fear. There's really not any terrorists out there who want to kill us, no need to rush into legislation that's vital to our national security before we go on vacation for a week... just put it off, no big deal.

And pebkac, walking out is not acting like children. Acting like children is when people bring pillows and blankies and teddy bears and want to have a sleepover because they're not getting their way.

[Spectatrix]

All politicians suck. Some more than others, but all of them -- on BOTH sides -- suck to some extent.

[THECHICKEN]

What's funny is that others have summoned the Democrats to walk out: http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exe...ew.cgi/48/17144

And then of course there's the Texas Democrats that did walk out: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/13/...ture/index.html

So I guess there's childishness on both sides.

My question is, you're ok with Congress, yes Congress writing resolutions to hold people in contempt? Doesn't that overstep the bounds a bit?

Supreme court has already ruled on something similar. Congress CAN hold someone in contempt.... but only people IN a congressional meeting and disrupting it in such a matter as to require them removed via contempt. And NO congress can't act as a judiciary... the very thought of that is a SCARY overstepping of enumerated powers.

[Hartmann]

Supreme court has already ruled on something similar. Congress CAN hold someone in contempt.... but only people IN a congressional meeting and disrupting it in such a matter as to require them removed via contempt. And NO congress can't act as a judiciary... the very thought of that is a SCARY overstepping of enumerated powers.

Thanks for the information. So they are overstepping their bounds with this move?

[pebkac]

Supreme court has already ruled on something similar. Congress CAN hold someone in contempt.... but only people IN a congressional meeting and disrupting it in such a matter as to require them removed via contempt. And NO congress can't act as a judiciary... the very thought of that is a SCARY overstepping of enumerated powers.

My understanding is that they can also vote for contempt for not complying with subpoenas that are issued by Congress. After researching this a little bit, the procedure is that once a person is voted to be held in contempt of Congress, the issue is referred over to the US Attorney for DC who is required by law to prosecute the case.

(And yes, you were right. I misinterpreted the clause that allows Congress to "constitute inferior tribunals.")

EDIT: Here's a source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7041000839.html

A subpoena is the first step in a long process that has rarely reached a clear legal conclusion in the past, experts say. If the administration refuses to comply with the subpoena, the Judiciary Committee could issue a citation for contempt of Congress, followed by a similar citation from the full Congress. That would then require the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia -- a former Gonzales aide -- to empanel a grand jury to consider criminal indictments.

In almost all cases, administrations have chosen to fully or substantially comply with such requests before they lead to criminal proceedings. In 1998, for example, a GOP-led House committee issued a contempt citation to then-Attorney General Janet Reno for refusing to turn over internal Justice Department memos. Justice offered a staff briefing on the documents, and the full House never acted on the citation.

"I'm not sure how the administration could win on this claim, in terms of keeping those documents," said Martin S. Lederman, a visiting law professor at Georgetown University who worked in Justice's Office of Legal Counsel from 1994 to 2002.

This post has been edited by pebkac: Feb 15 2008, 10:12 AM

[woody]

what sucks is all this high school cheerleader fighting and nothing getting done, and they're still getting paid by our tax dollars

what a fucking waste

[impala454]

Well they're not paid by number of bills passed. Bickering and disagreeing is fundamental to our system of government. If they were agreeing on every issue that came up, they wouldn't be very representative of their respective citizens.

[Spectatrix]

Well, I agree, but sometimes I wish they'd just sit down and say "ok, let's hash something out that works for both sides."

[woody]

Well they're not paid by number of bills passed. Bickering and disagreeing is fundamental to our system of government. If they were agreeing on every issue that came up, they wouldn't be very representative of their respective citizens.

Walks outs are neither bickering nor disagreeing

it's walking out

last i checked that's not a form of debate

[Testm0nkey]

THEY ARE SPENDING HOW MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INVESTIGATED THE PATRIOTS CHEATING SCANDAL WHEN FED. ORGANIZATIONS LIKE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES - CPS etc GET BUDGETED LESS THAN WHAT THEY SPEND ON THAT IN A WEEK!?

i hate america and their belief in "families" because its untrue


did you also know domestic violence, incest, child abuse is become more and more common and widespread? its also spread equally between all races and SES. its not a "oh its only poor minorities so they dont count as people"


america has no priorities