Bush's Attempt to Usurp the Constitution

Today's New York Times:

"The extreme reach of the administration's view that a war president is not
subject to check by the other branches of government was apparent in the
recently disclosed memorandums on torturing prisoners. A Defense Department
memo from March 2003 said that "any effort by Congress to regulate the
interrogation of unlawful combatants would violate the Constitution's sole
vesting of the commander-in-chief authority in the president." The
administration later disavowed that argument. It would plainly fail the Supreme
Court's test."

These sorry Republican *******s have got to go.

Walt

Subject: Bush's Attempt to Usurp the Constitution
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 6/29/2004 3:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Today's New York Times:

"The extreme reach of the administration's view that a war president is not
subject to check by the other branches of government was apparent in the
recently disclosed memorandums on torturing prisoners. A Defense Department
memo from March 2003 said that "any effort by Congress to regulate the
interrogation of unlawful combatants would violate the Constitution's sole
vesting of the commander-in-chief authority in the president." The
administration later disavowed that argument. It would plainly fail the
Supreme
Court's test."

These sorry Republican *******s have got to go.

Walt



Is it true that you volunteered for, and served with, the US Marines in the
Gulf?



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Bush's Attempt to Usurp the Constitution
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 6/29/2004 3:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Today's New York Times:

"The extreme reach of the administration's view that a war president is not
subject to check by the other branches of government was apparent in the
recently disclosed memorandums on torturing prisoners. A Defense Department
memo from March 2003 said that "any effort by Congress to regulate the
interrogation of unlawful combatants would violate the Constitution's sole
vesting of the commander-in-chief authority in the president." The
administration later disavowed that argument. It would plainly fail the
Supreme
Court's test."


As the SCOTUS indicated in an 8 to 1 kick in the ass they gave him yesterday.
Now watch the neocons accuse the SCOTUS of being left wing. (sheesh)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

From: (WalterM140)
Date: 6/29/2004 5:40 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Today's New York Times:

"The extreme reach of the administration's view that a war president is not
subject to check by the other branches of government was apparent in the
recently disclosed memorandums on torturing prisoners. A Defense Department
memo from March 2003 said that "any effort by Congress to regulate the
interrogation of unlawful combatants would violate the Constitution's sole
vesting of the commander-in-chief authority in the president." The
administration later disavowed that argument. It would plainly fail the
Supreme
Court's test."

These sorry Republican *******s have got to go.

Walt

Walt, please get a dictionary and look up 'usurp' and 'disavow.'

Secondly look beyond the NYT article.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...washpost/20040
629/ts_washpost/a13350_2004jun28

Thirdly please take your rants elswhere.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

(ArtKramr) wrote:

As the SCOTUS indicated in an 8 to 1 kick in the ass they gave him yesterday.
Now watch the neocons accuse the SCOTUS of being left wing. (sheesh)

Art, as I recall, neocons were originally catholic liberals who went
conservative. They were exemplified by Buckley, Phodoretz, and the whole New
Republic crowd. They often said silly things like 'Religion is the third leg of
conservatism" which could be taken several ways.

Anyway, the term is back in use and often describing youger players, and
O'Riley, Baby Jesus - I mean Hannity, and Laura ??? are all catholics. What do
you mean by neocon these days?

-- Charlie Springer

Subject: Bush's Attempt to Usurp the Constitution
From: (Regnirps)
Date: 6/29/2004 2:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote:

As the SCOTUS indicated in an 8 to 1 kick in the ass they gave him
yesterday.
Now watch the neocons accuse the SCOTUS of being left wing. (sheesh)

Art, as I recall, neocons were originally catholic liberals who went
conservative. They were exemplified by Buckley, Phodoretz, and the whole New
Republic crowd. They often said silly things like 'Religion is the third leg
of
conservatism" which could be taken several ways.

Anyway, the term is back in use and often describing youger players, and
O'Riley, Baby Jesus - I mean Hannity, and Laura ??? are all catholics. What
do
you mean by neocon these days?

-- Charlie Springer


Neo conservatives. The religious right wing of the Republican party



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote:
Subject: Bush's Attempt to Usurp the Constitution
From: (Regnirps)
Date: 6/29/2004 2:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote:

As the SCOTUS indicated in an 8 to 1 kick in the ass they gave him
yesterday.
Now watch the neocons accuse the SCOTUS of being left wing. (sheesh)

Art, as I recall, neocons were originally catholic liberals who went
conservative. They were exemplified by Buckley, Phodoretz, and the whole
New
Republic crowd. They often said silly things like 'Religion is the third
leg
of
conservatism" which could be taken several ways.

Anyway, the term is back in use and often describing youger players, and
O'Riley, Baby Jesus - I mean Hannity, and Laura ??? are all catholics.
What
do
you mean by neocon these days?

-- Charlie Springer


Neo conservatives. The religious right wing of the Republican party

I have some bad news for you Art, the "religious right wing of the
Republican party" are not neocon's.

Neo conservatives. The religious right wing of the Republican party

You have got to be ****ing kidding me.

You think THAT is what neocons are?

Jesus ****ing christ, it will never cease to amaze me how confidently people
who throw around the term 'neocons' as an insult will define it ridiculously
incorrectly, as though they have no clue just how completely clueless they
appear as a result.

Is it true that you volunteered for, and served with, the US Marines in the
Gulf?


Yes. And I narrowly missed going to Viet Nam too. The way that went
down is that the bulk of my Infantry Training School class made up the
bulk of the battalion that did the evacuation of Saigon in 1975.
Twenty-three of us got follow on orders to Sea School Atlantic, so I
was in Spain when the end came in Viet Nam.

Walt

Subject: Bush's Attempt to Usurp the Constitution
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 6/30/2004 5:27 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


Is it true that you volunteered for, and served with, the US Marines in the
Gulf?


Yes. And I narrowly missed going to Viet Nam too. The way that went
down is that the bulk of my Infantry Training School class made up the
bulk of the battalion that did the evacuation of Saigon in 1975.
Twenty-three of us got follow on orders to Sea School Atlantic, so I
was in Spain when the end came in Viet Nam.

Walt


Damn few had the guts to step forward and volunteer for the Marines. Me
included.
Well done Walt. Well done. Are there any Marines on this NG? Note that I didn't
say ex-marines because once a marine always a marine.





Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer