Bill Barr earlier tonight....something is about to POP!!!

a reply to: odzeandennz

Yep, according to your logic, we're a failed state.

Truth is, who are you comparesd to Barr? Someone small I'd imagine.

a reply to: Gryphon66

A judge in Hawaii has ruled that your post is irrelevant.

But seriously, it is the courts have run amok for too long,
and need to be reigned back in.

I took time to listen to this entire speech this morning. It was worth every single minute.

The restoration of balance between our three branches of government was one of the themes he expounded upon, and he did it with clarity and legal and historical context.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Gryphon66

A judge in Hawaii has ruled that your post is irrelevant.

But seriously, it is the courts have run amok for too long,
and need to be reigned back in.

Then the very last thing you want to do is pack them with authoritarians that think they speak for God, no?

a reply to: Arnie123

Indeed, I agree.

Barr’s speech resonates with authoritarians, it is however, not in any sense an “originalist” viewpoint.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You really should listen to the speech. That very statement you made tells me you did not.

Nobody suggests courts be packed with any sort of authoritarians. But, over the last few decades, the judiciary has overstepped its Constitutional boundaries. It is time for a recalibration based on the laws as they are written.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Gryphon66

You really should listen to the speech. That very statement you made tells me you did not.

Nobody suggests courts be packed with any sort of authoritarians. But, over the last few decades, the judiciary has overstepped its Constitutional boundaries. It is time for a recalibration based on the laws as they are written.

I really did listen to the speech; frankly, I’m unconcerned with your belief. I’m not going to go back and get the time stamp, but one of Barr’s arguments was that many of the powers of the Executive that he was arguing for were IMPLIED powers in the Constitution. That is NOT an Originalist nor a Strict Constructionalist argument (I’m assuming you recognize the terms.)

The Federal Courts are being packed with authoritarian nut jobs. Trump and McConnell are seeing to that, not to mention that their nominees are noted by the American Bar Association routinely as unfit for the job.

You have given no examples of what you consider “stepping out its Constitutional boundaries” so I judge your statement as another partisan talking point “activist judges.” I would note that many of you are thrilled with “activist judges” as long as they rule according to your beliefs, i.e. authoritarian.

Please, if you’re going to reply to my post, bring an argument, not a sermon.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder. You say "authoritarian", I say "Constitutionalist".

I don't think "activist judges" of any stripe are good for the country. Stick to the Constitution as it is written.

BTW, if you can't be bothered to "go back and get the time stamp" as you said, then conversation over.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
No true conservative, libertarian or liberal should be supporting an increase in the power and scope of the Executive.

That I see so many posts here in support of Barr’s nonsense, tells me that the strongest political faction here is AUTHORITARIAN.

Return all parts of the Federal Government to Constitutional limits.

You'll have to start with the House and Senate, they have expanded government overreach more than the Executive in recent years, by far.

Nothing is about to pop. Its just like disclosure. All TPTB (which in case anyone is wondering includes Barr and Trump - they are the establishment now) have to do is dangle something in front of the true believers and they will all salivate and think that Obama and Hillary are only days away from being handcuffed on national TV. Stop falling for this and recognized that you are being used. TPTB want the people to fight between themselves so we don't see what is really going on. This is conspiracy 101 but the Trump cult members can't seem to figure this out.

Also - how is Barr giving a speech considered news?

a reply to: entermemo

Trump getting 2 scoops of ice cream made the news....I'd say this is a little more important than that.

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: Gryphon66
No true conservative, libertarian or liberal should be supporting an increase in the power and scope of the Executive.

That I see so many posts here in support of Barr’s nonsense, tells me that the strongest political faction here is AUTHORITARIAN.

Return all parts of the Federal Government to Constitutional limits.

You'll have to start with the House and Senate, they have expanded government overreach more than the Executive in recent years, by far.

I disagree considerably. As an obvious example, I point to the use of Executive Orders as workarounds to Enforce policy when the Congress doesn’t do what the President wants.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Gryphon66

I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder. You say "authoritarian", I say "Constitutionalist".

I don't think "activist judges" of any stripe are good for the country. Stick to the Constitution as it is written.

BTW, if you can't be bothered to "go back and get the time stamp" as you said, then conversation over.

No, it’s not all a matter of opinion. That’s another fallacious appeal.

A “Constitutionalist” would never have bestowed personhood on a legal fiction as in Citizens United.

A “Constitutionalist” would never have had the Supreme Court pick the President as in Bush v. Gore.

Conversation over? If that were my choice I wouldn’t have bothered to type this in.

Did you listen to to the lecture? My assertion was one of Barr’s primary arguments ... are you really saying he didn’t say that the President’s implied powers are the most important?

Let’s make sure before I waste time.

originally posted by: entermemo
Nothing is about to pop. Its just like disclosure. All TPTB (which in case anyone is wondering includes Barr and Trump - they are the establishment now) have to do is dangle something in front of the true believers and they will all salivate and think that Obama and Hillary are only days away from being handcuffed on national TV. Stop falling for this and recognized that you are being used. TPTB want the people to fight between themselves so we don't see what is really going on. This is conspiracy 101 but the Trump cult members can't seem to figure this out.

Also - how is Barr giving a speech considered news?

How many people outside of right-wing think tanks had heard of The Federalist Society before ... is a better question.

Talk about stuffy elitists divorced from reality ... LOL.

“Some of these powers are expressed in the Constitution, such as the power of appointment, and others are implied or implicit in the Constitution, such as the removal power.”

17:54 in the Video linked in OP

This was Barr’s fourth point in his opening, following up his unique interpretation of the “federative power in Locke’s second treatise” which he claims allows the President to act unilaterally as he chooses when the law is “silent or inadequate” to meet the President’s agenda.

As a note, if anyone is interested, that’s in Chapters 12-13 of Locke’s second Treatise on Civil Government

Of course, Barr is grossly misrepresenting what Locke actually said or meant or implied ... Locke is talking about the SEPARATION OF POWERS not the EMPOWERMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE

146. This ·whole body· therefore has the power of war and peace, leagues and alliances, and all transactions with individuals and communities outside the commonwealth. This power might be called ‘federative’. As long as the thing is understood, I don’t care about the name.

The “body” is the body of the people acting as one nation. Locke’s argument is that this power should be held in the hands of a single individual to allow for rapid reaction to circumstances. It is not the carte blanche power more akin to the monarchical or princely power that Barr is praising and pawing after for the President.

Anyway, watch it, read it, he’s not making a Originalist or Constitutionalist or a Strict Constructionist argument.

He’s arguing that the President can do what he wants when he wants to secretly and with the power of reprisal against those in the Legislature who would contain that power.

Hmmm ... sound familiar?

This is your Attorney General, ladies and gentlemen.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Gryphon66

A judge in Hawaii has ruled that your post is irrelevant.

But seriously, it is the courts have run amok for too long,
and need to be reigned back in.

Then the very last thing you want to do is pack them with authoritarians that think they speak for God, no?

Better god than the devil. I mean come on, why leave THAT out there?

😂

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Gryphon66

A judge in Hawaii has ruled that your post is irrelevant.

But seriously, it is the courts have run amok for too long,
and need to be reigned back in.

Then the very last thing you want to do is pack them with authoritarians that think they speak for God, no?

Better god than the devil. I mean come on, why leave THAT out there?

😂

I would chose neither. Do you want a judge holding your life in their hands thinking that God or the Devil is whispering in their ear?

No.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

The “body” is the body of the people acting as one nation. Locke’s argument is that this power should be held in the hands of a single individual to allow for rapid reaction to circumstances. It is not the carte blanche power more akin to the monarchical or princely power that Barr is praising and pawing after for the President.

At no point did Barr argue that the Executive branch has monarchical or princely power - or even imply it.
He argued that in the years prior to the Constitutional Convention, the main concern was no longer monarchical power rather the over reach of the legislative branch into areas that were not well defined by law and required quick decisions for the security of the United States.
He was making Locke's exact point.

a reply to: UKTruth

I quoted Barr, gave the time stamp, and linked to Locke’s Second Treatise.

You gave me your opinion. Thanks, I disagree as stated.