Johnny Coli

I'm not talking about changing the written document. Just the interpretation. I should have been more clear, or maybe talked in the third person, like Scalia. Let's be clear. Johnny Coli loves the Constitution. Johnny Coli loves the amendment process. But Johnny Coli thinks interpreting that documant should be flexible with regards to evolving civil rights and liberties. Don't do drugs, and stay in school.

Executive Order 12834 Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees Signed: January 20, 1993 Executive Order 12837 Deficit Control and Productivity Improvement in the Administration of the Federal Government Signed: February 10, 1993 Executive Order 12839 Reduction of 100,000 Federal positions Signed: February 10, 1993 Executive Order 12844 Federal use of Alternative fueled vehicles Signed: April 21, 1993 Executive Order 12845 Requiring agencies to purchase energy efficient computer equipment Signed: April 21, 1993

I figured you were going to go there. There is room for flexability in certain areas of the constitution with respect to establishing/evolving civil rights and liberties, but there should be absolutely none with respect to the balance of power of the branches. I feel the Bushies are liberally interpreting the Constitution with respect to the power of the Executive branch.

Why don't you use a more current link than March, 2001? Because if you linked to the actual National Archive, your jab at Clinton whiffs. Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index: current to 2/7/2006 Dubya, currently 198 in 6 years...~33/yr Bill, 363 in 8 years...~45/yr Bush senior had 165...~41/yr So Bill has a slight edge than Dubya, currently, and wrote 4 more per year than his predecessor. But if you're looking for a more present-day record, look no further than Ronbo, with 380 EOs for ~48/yr. If you want to compare Bill's EOs and Dubya's, let's look at their first nine months (most of Dubya's after September 11 deal primarily with the response for the attack, so to be fair we will only look at January to September) Clinton 1/20-9/11, 1993 28 EOs Deal primarily with environmental issues, ethics, and believe-it-or-not, cutting the size of the federal government Bush II 1/20-8/17 2001 (it doesn't quite go up to mid-september, because he was on vacation) 24 EOs His first two establish faith-based initiatives (gotta pander to the people that got you there). The rest are anti-labor, pro-energy in lifting regulations, or amending previous executive orders. Boy, what a scumbag Bill was...abusing his power by cutting the federal government, attacking the deficit, and enacting environmentally sound policies.

There is nothing in the Constitution outlining Executive Order power, but there isn't anything saying he can't do it, either. (Wiki-link). From the non-descriptive National Archives link Here's a list of Dubya's EOs: W-EOs Here's a better link, descibing what they are in better detail, and linking to some articles discussing their controversial nature: EO explained Like I said...loose and liberal interpretation of Article II, and the power of the EO.

What is your interpretation of "the Vice President in the performance of executive duties" then?

Well, not me personally, but those of us who think the US Constitution should be a "living document." Johnny Coli is an idiot I got a kick out of his referring to himself in the third person...like Bob Dole, or a mental patient. While I don't think the US Constitution would break, I do think it should be interpreted with some flexibility when looking at it in the context of today. I do not think the founding fathers meant it to be an inflexible document that would rigidly stand the test of time. I believe the Constitution should evolve with the nation, using the original as a framework to be added to. Not evolving intio an executive branch power grab, like the current administration and half of the Supreme Court think, though. I'll ask the Founding Fathers myself in a few years when we get the whole cloning thing down (May 25, 2009, but you didn't get that date from me). Discuss...

Cheney has executive power? Oh Really? (O RLY?) Cheney says he has the power to declassify data According to Dick "The Rifleman" Cheney, he has executive power to declassify sensitive government information. No kidding? I’m scanning the US Constitution (in particular, Article II), and I don’t see where the Vice President is granted any executive powers. At all. In fact, other than presiding over the Senate, his job is primarily ceremonial, unless something happens to the President and he can't perform the duties of his Office (insert standard Bush is an idiot puppet joke here). Hmmm… So, it seems “Executive Power” will be the defense against the Sccoter Libbey accusation that good ‘ol Dick leaked him classified pre-war intelligence to then leak to the press to bolster the case for the Iraq war. One also wonders how Dick’s executive order fantasy will play out with regards to Plamegate (Cheney's magical executive power mystery tour). New court papers suggest Plame still had covert status. Newsweek, Feb 13th. It’s certainly been an entertaining couple of days for The Rifleman. Here's to a couple of more months. I wonder what clamoring would have erupted from the Right had Al Gore claimed he had authority to leak classified information. Addendum: Before hitting “submit”, I did another fact search. Lo and behold it looks like Dubya signed the executive order giving Cheney powers (Giving away power like it was a National Forest or something). I go from unbelieving shock, to anger (and I’m not going to delete the previous body of this post because I think it kicks ass…so there). Jesus. No one is pissed about this? No one is concerned that not only is this administration playing fast-and-loose with civil liberties, it’s also interpreting the US Constitution to fit it’s own power grab? The irony is, in a couple years Hillary will either be the POTUS or the VPOTUS. I wonder what the “unity executive theory” people will say then? Discuss....

Oh, like the Bush administration allowing the United Arab Emirites-based company control six american ports, or that Scooter says Dick told him to leak pre-war intellegence to the press to bolster support for the war, or The American Bar Association denouncing Bush's warrentless domestic taps program, or Fitzgerald possibly investigating Cheney in the CIA leak probe, or the 7 billion dollar givaway to Big Oil even though last year they recorded huge profits, so huge in fact that Bush had to defend them to a public that was told that Katrina hurt them only a few months ago while that same skeptical public is trying to heat their homes with heating oil at a five-year high. You mean stuff like that?

Did you get "fined" seven dollars, too. Or is that just a texas thing?

I think my logic is just fine. Imagine that. The press wanting to report on a rediculous little hunting accident that involves the vice president of the United States. I can see why you are so outraged at this witch hunt by the grandstanding liberal media. The absolute gall they have, for wanting to get a straight answer out of the White House press Secretary on a story involving the VP shooting someone in the face. I can't believe why they would question why the story was broken by a small paper in Corpus Christi, and not in some kind of statement from the White House almost 18 hours after the fact. It's not like they don't have such a great working relationship with this administration already. EDIT: Now imagine spending a couple hundred million dollars investigating a blow job.

It sounds like the only one who is "hoping he dies" is you, so that you can rip the "liberal" media.

Wrong. The people of Mass brought this before the board, who then interpreted the regulation the way it was written, and then ordered Walmart to comply. Big government had nothing to do with it.

UPDATE: And that's that... State orders Wal-Mart to sell Plan B contraceptive

Looks like he's had a heart attack from the buckshot lodged in there. Man shot by Cheney has minor heart attack But buried in the article.... It looks like the WH won't be outdone by the professional jokesters, or the wannabes: The WH was just as slow to recognize the humor as they were in giving the nation any info.

I don't know, but Bill was/is quite the lothario, while Dick just shot a hunting buddy on a canned hunt. You tell me who's got more mojo.

Good stuff in the Daily KOS: It's the Metaphor, Stupid!: Cheney story bigger than you think "The Buck Shot's Here!" (see the comments section link at the bottom; Totally wish I'd thought of that line. ) I also completely forgot about that scene in Mars Attacks! when they release the doves and all hell breaks loose. Yup, ol' Dick is gonna be haunted by this real live comedy sketch for a long time.

It sure beats writing manifestos in a tin shack in the woods, eh, Ted?

Happy Birthday (belated), Dean! Sorry I missed this thread. I was on the PPP fighting with the conservatives. I will drink to you tonight, sir. BTW; Colin, his lovely bride, and their new son were in Maine last weekend. I told him to tell you "Hey there", but he's a bigshot now, and doesn't relay messages from the little people. Hope you had a good b-day, El Decano.

I'm for you getting your hands on any drug that would help you to pull your head out of your ass.

Why prescribe/supply/dispense any drug that has the possibility of being abused/misused? People abuse every drug under the sun, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be available for those that need it. It is not Walmart's decision to make.

What? I'm not saying that at all. THE EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE IS NEEDED TO PREVENT THE POSSIBILITY OF A PREGNANCY RESULTING FROM SEXUAL ASSAULT. Whether-or-not they get pregnant should not even be relevant. And yes, I'm saying the need for emergency contaceptives is there because of the staggering statistical evidence supporting the magnitude of incidents of sexual assault. Jesus. Are you saying we should wait and see if they ever become pregnant?

601709[/snapback] You brought up statistical relevance in a previous post. My response was trying to determine why it should even matter. The strict definition is up to debate. The medical definition defines it as the period after the fertilized ovum is implanted in the uterus. By your definition, a petri dish would be considered "pregnant" with an in vitro fertilized egg. There should be no bias what-so-ever in prescribing medication. That, apparently, is where we disagree most. I'd say, based on the staggering statistics on sexual assault released by the Department of Justice in the link I provided, that your "skank example" would turn out to be the case far less of the time than a woman who needs the emergency contraceptive for prevention of a pregnancy due to a crime. Of couse, I have no "skank" statistics to back that up.

Rape crisis centers, women's safe houses, counseling centers, women that report to hospitals that refuse to press charges. So, what would be an acceptable number of rape-induced pregnancies be for you in order to consider that emergency contraceptives are necessary? 1 in 10? 1 in 1000? For the umpteenth time, emergency contraceptives prevent pregnancies, and do not end a pregnancy. Yes, let's use the "skank" defense to form an argument for not making emergency contraceptives available for the thousands of women who are assaulted each year..

It's all her fault There has to be a place for these women to get emergency contraceptives.