It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Executive Privilege and the Divine Right of Kings

page: 6
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Joe Biden




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Jakes51
 





This controversy has been going on for years. Why the cloak and dagger approach by the Attorney General, Eric Holder's, Justice Department? What are they trying to hide?


Bingo! What is the big deal in turning over documents that are not necessarily the fault of Obama's? Obama didn't create Fast and Furious, he inherited it. What is the big deal? What are they trying to hide?

Fast and Furious was started in 2009, months after George W. Bush was out of office.Since im typing here any way let me ask a question.

Ok ATF gets calls from gun dealers saying we have some large purchases going on we suspect its a front for buying arms for drug running.ATF contacts superiors who say ok let them sell the guns will track them. Then doesnt add tracking devices or inform the Mexican government so they can help track shipments and make arrests. Then once the guns have crossed the border nobody would have found out this occurred if it wasnt for a border agent dying using a gun traced back to a gun shop.The gun shop owner told them ATF told me to sell it to him. Now finnally my question This was supposed to stop gun trafficking into Mexico but how did the ATF expect it to do that when they had no idea where the guns went or to whom?

Obviously there was another reason this operation was given the green light and it had nothing to do with trying to prevent gun trafficking so whaqt other reason could they have was this terrorism against Mexico?



edit on 6/22/12 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

The reason is only mildly speculative, but indeed pursuant to a totaliatrian M.O.
And the principals being investigated may be for the first time perspiring. Our Leader
has already publicly admitted to a small group of 'gun-grabbers' that moves were and
are being made to cause a pretext for the effective elimination of the Second Amendment's
force of law. This has already been in a major aspect successful by the last decision
handed down by the Supremes. If you dig in to the rhetoric, it becomes uncomfortably
clear there's a basic right to own a gun-- but with conditional vagaries that superficially
look trivial. The one supposedly vague condition is the power of the government to
determine who's 'dangerous'... and it has never been challenged either politically or
ideologically in the blogosphere. That alone is stunning.
'Sure you can have a gun but we the government will decide (on topic, by some
Divine Right of putocratic no typo wisdom) whether you can get one or not: if we
decide you're dangerous in any way that we deem relevant.' Admittedly paraphrased,
but likely accurate enough to toss out to legal scholars who seem as perplexed
as I.
The living breathing founding document appears to be hyperventilating by now,
and this probably reads like I should have been in bed an hour ago... but that
guilty demeanor thing still keeps popping up like a Tim Curry jack in the box
with alarmingly increased frequency. So why invoke executive privelige to save
no skin off anyone's cowl? Why does it seem to me odd that the most demon-
strably dangerous groups on the planet seem to be codifying their cartblanche
possesion of everything but a hip fired multiple warhead puke; and Mr Tom
Twelvepack is getting to wait almost forever for ATF clearance of a shotgun?
If indeed ATF gets to trump the spirit of the Constitution's common law base,
there's essentially nothing being hidden except an obvious motive in my
sleepy opinion. Let the record show here the stinky pudding is being outed by
a real legal twit..me. But on the other hand, backward engineering or profiling
is sometimes most efffectively accomplished by a backwards engineer.
Finally, OUTSTANDING thread, JPZ! And I must say that tie is smoking right
off your digital larynx for a bevy of justifiable reasons! May the flames go huge;
this could thaw scads of sheep grazing in the frigid hinterlands of Numbskullia!



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   
You people just don't like Obama, and don't bother to take to task the other presidents who have used Executive Privilege in the past.

Where were you, Jean Paul, when Andrew Jackson cited Executive Privilege in 1833.. ? I don't see you saying anything about Andrew Jackson being wrong. Just going to let Andrew Jackson off the hook?
edit on 22-6-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   
LOL

King = cow to feed off of, will have short life, king is a condescending title for the food thinking they are better but they are fooled



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Video of Sen. Obama in 2007 CONDEMNING executive Privilege -

Click Here

Mr Hope and Change .... Mr Transparency ... BAH!



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 




all this may be the case. but Obama and Holder don't have to incriminate themselves in these crimes. Issa is going to have to make a specific accusation of a crime...what is it that I am saying that isn't computing in your brains? the Media is reporting the CIA is arming Syrian rebels...how is this different? you guys don't want to get it.

When and where was Obama accused of anything in F&F? His invoking executive privilege is what brought the idea to the fore. The investigation has been going on for over a year and that whole time the justice dept has been delaying it. This is not a normal court case this is a congressional hearing and for the potus to get involved like he did is very telling. He might as well come out and say I am involved, because the other option is his use of executive privilege was just to protect Holder. Which is not very ethical and the opposite of what he and his party allegedly stand for. Holder and his justice dept dragging their feet is what has turned this into a election issue and his boss needs it to go away. Too bad for him he just brought more attention to it



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by SyphonX
You people just don't like Obama, and don't bother to take to task the other presidents who have used Executive Privilege in the past.

Where were you, Jean Paul, when Andrew Jackson cited Executive Privilege in 1833.. ? I don't see you saying anything about Andrew Jackson being wrong. Just going to let Andrew Jackson off the hook?
edit on 22-6-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)


I guess if you keep digging far enough into the past, you can easily ignore the present. The thing you are missing is, we are supposed to learn from our past mistakes, not use them as an excuse to make bigger and better mistakes.

At what point does purposely making bigger and better mistakes cross the line to breaking the law. I think we've reached that point.

Des














edit on 22-6-2012 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The Divine Right of Kings is a doctrine that established royalty and political legitimacy of king - particularly in the West - that asserts that a monarch is not subject to any earthly authority and derives his political and royal power from God directly.

Executive Privilege is a power not expressly granted by the Constitution for the United States of America and only impliedly so if that privilege clearly demonstrates the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

The Separation of Powers doctrine applied in the Constitution for the United State of America is done so to keep each branch of government distinct and separate providing natural checks and balances preventing any one branch from becoming more powerful than the others, and to prevent collusion between the three branches that would have the effect of usurping the Constitutional mandates set forth for these branches.

White House Spokesman: Executive Privilege Is 'Entirely About Principle'

Sigh.



"never underestimate the predictability of stupidity" -vinnie jones "snatch"

thank you for being my sodium valporate.






posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
I guess if you keep digging far enough into the past, you can easily ignore the present. The thing you are missing is, we are supposed to learn from our past mistakes, not use them as an excuse to make bigger and better mistakes.

At what point does purposely making bigger and better mistakes cross the line to breaking the law. I think we've reached that point.

Des


Oh I know, I was being sarcastic. People keep going back in time saying "Well if this president did it..."

As Jean Paul states in his OP, this is not a new concept and it's a holdover from Feudalism. We just keep excusing it because of past leadership.
edit on 22-6-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The whole Executive Privilige concept is a bull# one. What seems to be getting lost is that these people work for the American Citizens - at least in theory - so there is no such thing as an Executive to the Citizens. I didn't like it when Bush used it and I don't like it now that Obama has.

That said, the hypocrisy demonstrated all over ATS on this subject is nothing short of extremely amusing... to watch the very same people who were foaming at the mouth to defend Bush's use of EP (as many as 4 times in one MONTH, compared to once in four years for Obama) now shrieking about how bad EP is is just plain funny.

The hypocrisy is pretty transparent.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna


As for the OP. Where were you when Bush was doing the same thing?

So many posters here were all on Bush's sack. Let's try for a little consistency and not hypocritical bitching. There's a systemic problem and it doesn't have anything to do with parties, other than the fact that they exist.
edit on 21-6-2012 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)


If you look at the information posted below the members name, it says he registered at this site in 2009. So I'm gonna have to say I don't believe you if you're trying to say that you looked through the member's post history throughout GWBs presidency to find him silent on the issue since he was not even a member until 5-11-2009. And if you didn't do that, then what you're saying is that you just went ahead and assumed that this member has been here for about 3 1/2 or 4 years or more. Why would you make such an assumption? And why would you tale this fantasy a step further and assume that, while he was here, that he had nothing bad to say about George W. Bush's presidency?? I find that odd... It's like, just for the heck of it, you make up these random ideas in your head about somebody? I just, seriously, do not get that... Do you two know eachother or something? is that it? Was he here under a different screen name back then and you used to have, or witness debates with him about Bush and he would support Bush or otherwise remain silent about him? Cause... It's either that, or you've finally just gone ape-doodoo... I kinda feel sorry for your friends and family, to have to deal with such random personal attacks from out of left field on any given day!! You do realize, that they will only put up with it for so long before they have you comitted, don't you? I'd shape it up if I was you before everyone realizes how disturbed you just might be...! I mean, if you're capable of this on a message board to a random person who's done nothing to you...who knows how you will handle a situation in person when someone actually has done something or said something you don't like!



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna

Originally posted by randomname
there is only one King and He lives in Heaven.

everyone else is a pretender, regardless of what titles or positions they give themselves, they're a human being.


Hmmm ya. I'm not anti spirituality or anti god, but that speaks of a general lack of understanding and a very primitive understanding of the cosmos.

As for the OP. Where were you when Bush was doing the same thing?

So many posters here were all on Bush's sack. Let's try for a little consistency and not hypocritical bitching. There's a systemic problem and it doesn't have anything to do with parties, other than the fact that they exist.
edit on 21-6-2012 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)


EX-President Bush? That Bush? The Bush that is no longer relevant, no longer in charge, no longer making policy? Is that the Bush you're referring to? Get the picture? He's gone, out of office. Has been for some time now. We have a new Fascist-in-Chief, and he's worse than the one before. Welcome to 2012, and get over it.

JPZ, another great post. Executive privilege is not intended to be a skirt for the president's children to hide under. It is meant to be used to protect state secrets, secrets that would harm our country and/or citizens. To use it this way like Nixon did, to hide criminal activity, is criminal in itself. People actually go to jail for that. Unless you're Emperor Barack Obama I. Then you get campaign contributions.

/TOA
edit on 22-6-2012 by The Old American because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Divine right of kings !

pffffft , there is nothing divine about a king , and he should hold no more rights than anyone else on this planet
the same applies to any person elected democratically to govern.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
there is only one King and He lives in Heaven.

everyone else is a pretender, regardless of what titles or positions they give themselves, they're a human being.



And you're certain(with proof not belief) this king is in heaven how?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


it is the law that I speak of.

now we both know where our lines are.

have fun on your side of it.


Yep. Because there are people that advocate the tyranny of legislation, such as you, there will always be the need for people that advocate the rule of law and the unalienable rights of all people everywhere, like me.

I would hate to think you are actually having fun gleefully advocating the expansion of the very prison system you claim you were once an inmate in, but thanks for entering my thread and insisting we trail off topic. I suppose that was your goal all along.

Obama does not need people like you defending him, it only makes him look worse.

JPZ, well put sir.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by pirhanna

Originally posted by randomname
there is only one King and He lives in Heaven.

everyone else is a pretender, regardless of what titles or positions they give themselves, they're a human being.


Hmmm ya. I'm not anti spirituality or anti god, but that speaks of a general lack of understanding and a very primitive understanding of the cosmos.

As for the OP. Where were you when Bush was doing the same thing?

So many posters here were all on Bush's sack. Let's try for a little consistency and not hypocritical bitching. There's a systemic problem and it doesn't have anything to do with parties, other than the fact that they exist.
edit on 21-6-2012 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)


EX-President Bush? That Bush? The Bush that is no longer relevant, no longer in charge, no longer making policy? Is that the Bush you're referring to? Get the picture? He's gone, out of office. Has been for some time now. We have a new Fascist-in-Chief, and he's worse than the one before. Welcome to 2012, and get over it.

JPZ, another great post. Executive privilege is not intended to be a skirt for the president's children to hide under. It is meant to be used to protect state secrets, secrets that would harm our country and/or citizens. To use it this way like Nixon did, to hide criminal activity, is criminal in itself. People actually go to jail for that. Unless you're Emperor Barack Obama I. Then you get campaign contributions.

/TOA
edit on 22-6-2012 by The Old American because: (no reason given)
You're damn right OA!



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
there is only one King and He lives in Heaven.

everyone else is a pretender, regardless of what titles or positions they give themselves, they're a human being.

I'm assuming you're talking about The One And Only



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Queen Pelosi...lol...she reminds me of the ugly witch from the move Snow White when should got old, lost her looks and died. Just a whinny complaining old lady. How does this pitiful excuse for an Congresswoman let alone a woman (I think she is female) continue to get elected...?

Well this could set Hilary C. up to run against King Oblama lot from the land of Oblamarama...

Sniper



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by seaside sky
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I appreciate the discussion of utilitarianism, both ancient and modern, but another appropriate way to look at it is through Kant's categorical imperative. Ask if the action would be right if hypothetically made a universal law- would it be right if others acted in this way ? The answer in this instance is certainly not.




I can't stand Kant! Law is not made. It exists and we either recognize it or we don't. I'm also not much of a fan of hypothetical scenarios. That said, I agree with yours and appreciate your input.

On a side note: I think Kant's Critique of Pure Reason almost singlehandedly brought an end to the Age of Reason, and his tedious tome took nearly a thousand pages to make the point: Forget happiness do your moral duty. I would suggest that happiness is your moral duty.


Virtues exist, not to harm others. The only thing that is natural, not made, is to live within the full ability you can with joy, and not to step on anyone else to do it or harm anyone, or take from them, so most of the "laws" are crimes and we should all be kings in our own homes not paying taxes. Of course there would be work in a modern world to educate kids that is a joy to serve others too, to share your talents, or all civilization would fall apart. And so the natural progression leads to individual freedom wedded to equality or Venus Project run by councils of citizens, like heaven.

But I'd rather we spent our energy learning how to do that and become better servants teachers to the young, than constantly having to fight corruption.

Anyway, he is obviously hiding his involvemnt and I hope they impeach him anyway. And I don't play favorites. In Canada I had stop voting, they're all criminals or know the others are and don't speak out. So they're all criminals.

Law in its pure form, protectors of the people and freedom, both their equality and their freedoms, in the basic form of it is heroic, to me at times. Like one of our NDP'ers old school, who worked free of charge to win Native Rights, and my parents met. He turned down leadeship for he was alot purer than that position would entail.

Tom Berger, he had a great deal of integrity. Too much integrity to run for leadership. If it was the old school contenders, I might vote. The last few decades are massive in corruption.

As a protector the real basic law should be prevailing all over the place, yet the slime floats to the top in the big melting pot of life.
edit on 22-6-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3n19m470

Originally posted by pirhanna


As for the OP. Where were you when Bush was doing the same thing?

So many posters here were all on Bush's sack. Let's try for a little consistency and not hypocritical bitching. There's a systemic problem and it doesn't have anything to do with parties, other than the fact that they exist.
edit on 21-6-2012 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)


If you look at the information posted below the members name, it says he registered at this site in 2009. So I'm gonna have to say I don't believe you if you're trying to say that you looked through the member's post history throughout GWBs presidency to find him silent on the issue since he was not even a member until 5-11-2009. And if you didn't do that, then what you're saying is that you just went ahead and assumed that this member has been here for about 3 1/2 or 4 years or more. Why would you make such an assumption? And why would you tale this fantasy a step further and assume that, while he was here, that he had nothing bad to say about George W. Bush's presidency?? I find that odd... It's like, just for the heck of it, you make up these random ideas in your head about somebody? I just, seriously, do not get that... Do you two know eachother or something? is that it? Was he here under a different screen name back then and you used to have, or witness debates with him about Bush and he would support Bush or otherwise remain silent about him? Cause... It's either that, or you've finally just gone ape-doodoo... I kinda feel sorry for your friends and family, to have to deal with such random personal attacks from out of left field on any given day!! You do realize, that they will only put up with it for so long before they have you comitted, don't you? I'd shape it up if I was you before everyone realizes how disturbed you just might be...! I mean, if you're capable of this on a message board to a random person who's done nothing to you...who knows how you will handle a situation in person when someone actually has done something or said something you don't like!


Pot meet kettle



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join