Crap Throwing Monkey

I think it depends on your definition of "bad". Their partisanship, I think, is uncommon but not unprecedented. Their "But we're the press!" whining and bitching, on the other hand, I can't think of a historical precedent for.

If the 15th "worked" that well, Brown v. Board of Edumacation wouldn't have been necessary.

I don't recall that...but judging by cases I've heard in the Corps (from people actually participating in the courts martial), that kind of thing is handled at the service level, well below an EO. Unless the AF does it differently...maybe they just don't bother, because courts martial interfere with their tee times...

All of 'em? Particularly the rights of minorities (or, more specifically, blacks) since the 15th. Last I checked, the rights enjoyed by blacks today evolved through Rosa Parks and Brown v. Board of Education from the 15th Amendment over the course of several decades, and not overnight.

Presumably after Dick sobered up, if you presume he was drunk. You're deriving one presumption from another, completely unsupported presumption, and presenting it as some sort of proof. The technical term for this is: "pulling sh-- out of your ass".

Yeah, THAT one worked out well. It's tempting to say Bush revoked it...except I don't much recall anyone in Clinton's administration following it either...

Yes, they are. You'll get no dispute from me. But "The Constitution should be flexible in some areas, but not in others" sounds suspisciously like "The Constitution should be flexible when I disagree with it." If it were coming from anyone else - Mickey, say - that's how I'd interpret that. Particularly seeing how when I espouse the same "flexibly strict constructionist" view, I get called various names as well. Though truly...if you want flexibility in the Constitution, call a friggin' Constitutional Convention and propose some Amendments. That's why that process was written in to the Constitution, so it would be a living document. None of which is all that relevant when it comes to executive orders...but it's more interesting than discussing whether or not we'll ever know if Cheney was plastered because he was on Fox, or Chinese clowns tilting boards with lasers on them at the South Pole...

One more to that magic 500 mark, too...

Brad Johnson? I thought the Vikes were heading into a rebuilding year...not a deconstructing year.

Been watching Dr. Phil?

Great. Now he's going to think I'm you as well...

Okay, so again like I said, the real issue isn't the specific EO that gives Cheney executive authority as much as it is the constitutionality of EO's in general. With which I agree: there certainly are constitutional issues with executive orders concerning separation of powers. So on the one hand, executive orders grant the government more flexibility in responding to events in a world that's become more fast-paced than it was when the Constitution was written (and thus is a perfectly valid argument to the "living document" adherents of the Constitution. Like you. ). On the other hand...yeah, they can clearly be used to step on Congress' toes (which is more a strict constructionist argument. Unlike you. Even though you're making it. ) And I'm content to leave the discussion at that for now, as I don't have an answer. But I certainly admire the problem.

Who can blame you...ever since you found out Ruffalo looks like a crap-throwing monkey...

But any half-wit can make a pun on "Aizkraukles Rajons". You're just not trying hard enough...

I think that's the first thing I've ever heard come out of the government that's actually sensible.

It is a true talent you have, finding new and different ways to post on the same topic every day and keep it fresh. It's also !@#$ing annoying. But it is a talent.

I don't know that that setup could have been any more obvious...

Screw "interpretation". I'll tell you exactly what it means: It means the the Vice President, in declassifying material, is acting with the executive authority of the President as granted to him in the changes to Executive Order 13292. Which is pretty much what I said: the President via executive order authorized the VP to act with Presidential executive authority concerning the classification and declassification of data. As for the Constitutional issue...I don't think it is. I don't think (but I'll have to look to be sure) the Constitution forbids the President delegating his executive authority to others; I'm damned sure it doesn't forbid executive orders themselves. But if it DOES prohibit or restrict delegation of executive authority...well, that would mean that our government as it operates now is SEVERELY unconstitutional. And frankly, I think you're looking at the wrong issue anyway. The issue isn't Cheney so much as the executive order that grants him the power, and... 1) Is the executive order even legal? There are laws that govern the handling of classified information; I don't know how such laws are written or enforced, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that the president can't arbitrarily decide who can and cannot declassify information. And, more frighteningly... 2) If there's an executive order delegating these executive powers...what other powers are delegated in other executive orders we don't know about?

Maybe you should do a little search on Able Danger and posse comitatus.

Please don't confuse him. We're still trying to teach him the concept that parallel lines don't intersect.

Once more, real slow and loud: I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE HERE THAT KNOWS YOU'RE AN IDIOT. Get it?

Even when you clone the Founding Fathers, their original memories won't be embodied. Therefore, you still won't get a straight answer, since the clone's answers will be based on the clone's experiences in the modern world and not the original's, therefore their interpretation of the Constitution will be different, and Scalia will think them idiots...

Technically, nothing you've said implies Cheney has executive powers. It does say, however, that the executive, by executive order, has granted him certain powers, which is both different and permissible. As far as I know, the executive can issue an executive order that grants ME the authority to declassify information - it would be stupid, and he'd catch flak for it, of course, but I know of nothing that prohibits it. And the Constitution doesn't grant authority regarding classification of information either way. I don't see how you can argue a constitutional abuse of power for something that isn't even remotely covered in the Constitution.

I can't imagine they'd be happy about losing to the Swiss. There must be some pretty cross Czechs today... I kill me...