Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Valuepro who wrote (304485)	2/23/2011 11:07:25 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 306849

You nailed the lefty.

To: Valuepro who wrote (304485)	2/24/2011 10:39:16 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Sure. I'll give you examples. However, first let me point out, as I have in my previous posts, that you and I agree that the Executive Branch takes too many liberties with the law. Their job is to Execute the law, not to interpret it any way they want in order to push an agenda. My only point of contention is that you seem to think Obama alone is unique in this, when Presidents from both parties are guilty as hell when it comes to this kind of thing. Having said that, here are examples of where Bush Jr took liberties with the law: Fact # 1: George W. Bush issued 161 signing statements affecting over 1,100 provisions of law in 160 Congressional enactments. coherentbabble.com Fact # 2: Bush Jr. was notorious for signing statements that were intended to challenge and materially change the law. He was the most prolific offender when it comes to twisting, interpreting, and outright ignoring the law. * "A president may announce his intent to disregard the law due to claimed constitutional infirmity, or he may announce that he will interpret the law to avoid the constitutional difficulties that he perceives." coherentbabble.com * 78% of President George W. Bush's signing statements raised constitutional objections, according to the CRS Report for Congress: coherentbabble.com * "Many scholars, lawyers, reporters, commentators, and members of Congress regarded George W. Bush's use of signing statements as a constitutional crisis. Prominent individuals -- across the entire political spectrum -- expressed concern that the Bush administration's use of signing statements was an attempt to shift the balance of power among the three branches of the federal government, or to lay groundwork for Supreme Court precedent that could rewrite the law controlling the respective powers of the three branches. Non-partisan sources concluded that the Bush administration tried to alter our concept of the powers of Congress and the presidency and to institutionalize a view of expansive executive authority." coherentbabble.com * Congress was so upset by Bush's attempts to subvert or interpret the law that several members of Congress from both parties put forth bills to address the issue. I've listed some of those below: coherentbabble.com => "On 26 July 2006, Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa) introduced S. 3731, to "regulate the judicial use of presidential signing statements in the interpretation of Acts of Congress." The GPO print of the bill is here. Sen. Specter's remarks on introduction of the bill are available here. No action was taken on the bill after it was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee in June, 2006" => "For an example of the 109th Congress's frustration with signing statements, there is an interesting exchange between Representative Mark Souder (R-In), Chair of the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, and John Walters, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. During a congressional hearing concerning H.R. 2829, Representative Souder asked Mr. Walters to explain an earlier comment indicating that President Bush might issue a signing statement on provisions in H.R. 2829 that affected the status of the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The discussion appears on pages 121 through 123 of this PDF document: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, 109th Congress, 1st Session, on H.R. 2829 to Authorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy Act (June 15, 2005) (source: GPO website – Congressional Hearings)." => "On 15 October 2007, Senator Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced HR 3835, entitled the ‘‘American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007,’’ the stated purpose of which is: "to restore the Constitution’s checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers." The bill addresses, among other topics, presidential signing statements. The GPO print of the full text of HR 3835 as introduced is available here. Senator Paul's remarks upon introduction of the bill are available here (Part 1) and here (Part 2). The most recent action on the bill was referral to the House Intelligence (Permanent Select) Committee (October 15, 2007)."

To: Valuepro who wrote (304485)	2/24/2011 11:49:01 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Hillary Clinton calls for international action on Libya bbc.co.uk Hillary Clinton has called on the international community to "speak with one voice" in seeking a resolution to the unrest in Libya. The US secretary of state called on Libyan authorities to cease violent actions and welcomed a UN statement condemning the loss of life in the country. Libyan ruler Col Muammar Gaddafi is battling to retain control of Tripoli and areas in western Libya as protesters consolidated gains in the east and foreigners continued to flee. Much of the capital is deserted as pro-Gaddafi gunmen roam the streets, with reports of uprisings in western towns such as Misurata, Sabratha and Zawiya.