libertarian candidates

[Kerberos]

Wow, that’s quite a bit of homophobia. Why single out gays as potential bomb-toters?

BECAUSE THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!! THE CREWMEN IN THE PLANES THAT DROPED THE BOMBS, THE SCIENTIST WHO DEVELOPPED THE BOMBS AND EVEN PRESIDENT ROSEVEELT HIMSELF WERE ALL GAYS!!!!!!!!!!!! IF THEY WEREN'T GAYS WHY WOULD THEY DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT????? SO THERE.

 

[varwoche]

Probably for the same reason that he yanked his 'scholarship' about bills of attainder.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030623010038/www.badnarik.org/news/028.html

True to Badnarik style, it's an odd read. I don't quite grasp it though.

 

[Rouser2]

Once again, I have labia. Does that need to be in my sig?

crimresearch was correct. Or to be more specific, I percieved them as Libertarians because they were card-carrying members.

If you ID political party members by the "memberhship cards" they carry, just how many of those would be the Democrat or Republian parties????


-- Rouser

 

[shanek]

On the grounds of having violating the constutution, per the next president.

How would he have violated the Constitution?

By the way, you still haven't answered the question: Why is saying that the President has the power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws (a power directly given him by the Constitution itself) making the President "all-powerful"? And how would doing so "violate" the law? If you continue to refuse to answer these questions, you will have no credibility left.

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay [/i]


>>As for the difference between blowing up a building in use versus one that is not, I don't see the big distinction. He’s the one that is planning on making it not be in use! He is planning on blowing up a building that currently is in use.


What a lot of nonsense. That U.N. Bldg. is private property. You poor anti-libertarians should get a life. There is indeed a thing called hyperbole as a means of humor used by speakers to get across a point (for all those who are not too obtuse to get it).


"My fellow Americans. I'm pleased to announce that I've signed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union. We begin bombing in five minutes." – Ronald Reagan (off-mic)



-- Rouser

 

[crimresearch]

"Some content has finally been added to the Badnarik site, coming after the controversial articles referenced in this thread were yanked once he was nominated."

Maybe you mis-typed the URL, and wound up at Nader's site...

 

[Kerberos]

How would he have violated the Constitution?

By the way, you still haven't answered the question: Why is saying that the President has the power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws (a power directly given him by the Constitution itself).

Could you quote the relevant part of the constitution?

 

[shanek]

So, we've got varwoche whining his little woo-woo head off about a candidate actually (gasp!) rebuilding his web site after his nomination (something he really didn't think would happen, and so it really came as a surprise; not to mention the fact that he now has a completely new and much larger campaign staff courtesy of former members of the Russo and Nolan campaigns, but let's not let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory) and made it seem like he was involved in some kind of coverup of his previous statements, even going so far as to say these comments were "yanked" when he knows perfectly well the ENTIRE SITE'S CONTENTS were being "yanked" and redone, even going so far as to say, "republocrats have nothing up on you."

And yet, here's an instance from a few weeks back when John Kerry put a statement on his website saying that national service should be MANDATORY. Russo found out about it and released a statement to the press about it. The NEXT DAY, the site was modified to remove the statement (and this was NOT part of any kind of redesign or revamping of the site), and so Russo's team made a copy of the Google cache. You can read about it here:

http://russoforpresident.com/batm/index.php/2004/04/20/p182

So a Democrat DELIBERATELY removes a statement in response to public criticism, with NO retraction, just complete revisionism, and this is somehow OK? Yet, Badnarik is somehow involved in shady coverup tactics to cover his shameful comments when his campaign team revamps his entire web site now that he has the nomination?

 

[shanek]

Could you quote the relevant part of the constitution?

I quoted it above. It's all in Article II:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

So the President weilds executive power. He gets to execute the laws.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So the President, who executes the law, is SWORN to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which would include NOT executing any laws which violate the Constitution. Also, Section 3 says, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," and again in the context of the above this clearly means NOT enforcing unconstitutional laws.

Also, Section 4 says, in its entirety, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." NONE of Badnarik's statements are grounds for impeachment, so even if what varwoche says is true it says a lot more about Congress and how little they care about the Constitution than it does Badnarik as a President. Impeachment has only been invoked twice in the history of the United States, both times for completely bogus reasons (and in neither case was the President actually thrown out of office).

 

[crimresearch]

" You poor anti-libertarians should get a life. There is indeed a thing called hyperbole as a means of humor used by speakers to get across a point (for all those who are not too obtuse to get it).
"
_________________________________________
Actually:

'Hyperbole, a way of speaking or writing that makes someone or something sound much bigger, better, smaller, worse, more unusual, etc., than they are'
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=hyperbole*1+0&dict=A

'Hyperbole, extravagant exaggeration (as "mile-high ice-cream cones")
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?obok=Dictionary&va=hyperbole
__________________________________________

And there we have our JREF lesson in how NOT to have a useful discourse.

Make up your own definitions for words, label authoritative links and references as 'unauthorized', use as much material out of context as possible, refuse to admit that evidence printed on a page even exists, smother with plenty of ad hominem assertions, subject changes, and strawman arguments, while accusing everyone else who is posting direct evidence of doing the same, add claims to know what others must be thinking, and finally whine about how badly you are being abused by those on your enemies list, and...
VOILA!!! Instant keyboard commando.


"Somebody has said of the boldest figure in rhetoric, the hyperbole, that it lies without deceiving." Macaulay

 

[varwoche]

What a lot of nonsense. That U.N. Bldg. is private property. You poor anti-libertarians should get a life. There is indeed a thing called hyperbole as a means of humor used by speakers to get across a point (for all those who are not too obtuse to get it).

"My fellow Americans. I'm pleased to announce that I've signed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union. We begin bombing in five minutes." – Ronald Reagan (off-mic)

Reagan's comment was an off-the-cuff joke not intended to be broadcast.

Badnarik's comment is an article that was posted to his web site, intended for broadcast. (Until he was nominated, that is.)

As well, nuts like Badnarik can't be allowed the hyperbole defense, seeing as the alleged "hyperbole" is not distinguishable from the "serious" position statements.

 

[varwoche]

So, we've got varwoche whining...

Shanek, I am sorry to have caused a misimpression. Whining implies an unhappy/complaining/worrying sort of mindset, whereas I am thoroughly enjoying reporting my findings on Badnarik, and have no worries at all that he will be elected, or that he will advance his nutty beliefs. Zero.

 

[varwoche]

How would he have violated the constitution?

At the whim of the next president.

 

[shanek]

Varwoche, thank you for completely ignoring all questions posed to you and refusing to support your unfounded assertions, and showing to everyone how much support you actually do have for your position: none at all.

 

[crimresearch]

Unless of course, the great Constitutional scholar Badnarik interprets the Constitution to mean that he is President for life...

 

[Kerberos]

I quoted it above. It's all in Article II:

So the President weilds executive power. He gets to execute the laws.

So the President, who executes the law, is SWORN to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which would include NOT executing any laws which violate the Constitution.

You're reading things into the Constitution that just aren't there; making an oath doesn't give you total liberty to execute the oath, in whatever manner you deem fit. If a law enforcement officer swears to uphold the law, which I imagine they do that doesn't give him the power to refuse execute the courts decisions, just because he doesn't agree with their interpretation of the law. The Constitution explicitly gives the authority to interpret the constitution to the Supreme Court, not the president: Article 3 Section. 2. Clause 1: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution".

Also, Section 3 says, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," and again in the context of the above this clearly means NOT enforcing unconstitutional laws.

What it means is that he has to execute the laws that Congress passes, you're simply reading into the Constitution what you want it to say. The President doesn't have to enforce unconstitutional lawsm but he does not have the authority to determine whether a law is unconstitutional, that power is explicitly reserved to the courts.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Also, Section 4 says, in its entirety, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." NONE of Badnarik's statements are grounds for impeachment, so even if what varwoche says is true it says a lot more about Congress and how little they care about the Constitution than it does Badnarik as a President. Impeachment has only been invoked twice in the history of the United States, both times for completely bogus reasons (and in neither case was the President actually thrown out of office). [/B][/QUOTE]
Badnarik wants to refuse to implement laws that Congress passes in direct violation of the Constitution that states that he must faithfully implement their lawsm and which explicitly places the power to interpret the Constitution with the Supreme Court. As for Section 4 it's what is commonly called a rubber paragraph, it states that Congress can Impeach for "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." With no definition of what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanour it basically means whatever Congress wants it to mean, with the possible exceptions of gay-walking and shoplifting. It certainly includes refusing to implement laws that Congress passes. It also includes trying to force Congress to attend his course, unless there is some law that gives him such power which I doubt there is.

 

[varwoche]

What a lot of nonsense. That U.N. Bldg. is private property.

Thank you for raising this point.

Anyone know who owns the UN building?

Unless Pres. Badnarik pulls some constitutional hocus-pocus, he may be committing a crime when he blows it up.

 

[varwoche]

Varwoche, thank you for completely ignoring all questions posed to you and refusing to support your unfounded assertions, and showing to everyone how much support you actually do have for your position: none at all.

Shanek, with all due respect, the positions espoused by you and Badnarik don't pass the giggle test.

 

[varwoche]

By the way, you still haven't answered the question: Why is saying that the President has the power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws (a power directly given him by the Constitution itself) making the President "all-powerful"? And how would doing so "violate" the law? If you continue to refuse to answer these questions, you will have no credibility left.

Everyone reading the board, except for you, knows that the supreme court determines constitutionality of laws.

The average 6th grader understands our government better than you and Badnarik.

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by crimresearch [/i]

>>"'Hyperbole, extravagant exaggeration (as "mile-high ice-cream cones")
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?obok=Dictionary&va=hyperbole
__________________________________________

>>And there we have our JREF lesson in how NOT to have a useful discourse.

And here we have a JREF lesson in how a poster respondent has found the correct, intended definition of a word, as doesn't even know it. "Blow up the UN bldg." Nukes for all, and "We begin the bombing in 5 minutes" -- Humorless people just haven't got a clue.


-- Rouser