What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
89 Comments
- leatherback, on 02/15/2008, -6/+26It is about time some action on this was taken by congress.
- porchcow, on 02/15/2008, -4/+21So Bush doesn't wanna allow Congress any time to examine one of the most important pieces of national security legislation in our nation's history. And this would be the same president who said "Okay, you've covered your ass" when told about bin Laden's plans to attack the U.S. shortly before 9/11.
To quote Marlon Brando in "Last Tango in Paris"..."What a steaming pile of *****." - inactive, on 02/15/2008, -3/+19The Rupublicans walk out because others want to uphold the Constitution.... So it's come to this?
- inactive, on 02/15/2008, -3/+16I think some Democrats woke up when Al Wynn got his ass run off in the Maryland primary. Wynn was one of the right wing Democrats who voted Republican on many issues. Donna Edwards beat him from the left. If this happens a few more times, the Democrats might suddenly feel a bit more restive.
- arrogantprick, on 02/15/2008, -2/+14So to "prevent grandstanding" by the Dems, the Repubs grandstand? Yeah, that's typical congressional logic.
- tw3k, on 02/15/2008, -4/+15Hello Oath of Office!!!
- ChristPissed, on 02/15/2008, -4/+14Today is a great day, Freedom is on the March, but not for the neoCONS (Hallelujah!)
- inactive, on 02/15/2008, -4/+14The Neocons are modern day FASCISTS.
- DeePsix501, on 02/15/2008, -2/+11I love how they accuse democrats of a political stunt but staged a planned walk out and all. They even had a podium ready for when they walked out. THATs a political stunt
- jhochberg, on 02/15/2008, -1/+8Maybe if they stopped spending so much time on this Roger Clemens steroid abuse thing...which HARDLY impacts this nation...and spent time on REAL issues...this wouldn't have taken so long. Who gives a crap if Roger Clemens did steroids. That's his problem and a problem with his employer...not a national matter that needs to consume tax payer dollars like this should!!!
- bookishboy, on 02/15/2008, -2/+8Oooh, that'll teach him. Charge his aides with contempt. That should eat up some of the year he has left in office, and surely he won't continue to trample on our constitution when he (shudder) sees his aides answering contempt charges.
- an0nymous, on 02/15/2008, -2/+7Well, lock the door behind them, then.
Now let's pass some legislation. - pdurod, on 02/15/2008, -2/+6Bush wants to put law breaking by the corporate telecoms above the American people.
- asspants, on 02/15/2008, -2/+6@ the people who say this is a waste of time.
Talking about superbowl wins is a waste of their time.
Trying to figgure out which superstar athletes took steroids is a waste of time.
This, however is not. - gernblansted, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4When it comes to criminal contempt charges, Congress can only hand them over to the Justice Department. However, Congress retains the privilege through "Inherent" contempt charges to order the Sargent-at-Arms to arrest and detain individuals so charged, until they decide to go before congress and testify. Also, the Senate has the right to convict anyone who is impeached, a duty which is not of legislative purpose only. Of course, both of these are exceedingly rare events.
- gernblansted, on 02/15/2008, -2/+6The President doesn't have a right to fire US attorneys for political purposes. Nixon fired his AG for political purposes, and it is part of why he was going to be impeached. The US attorneys serve at the PLEASURE of the President. That doesn't mean they SERVE the President - that's unethical and illegal. That's why the word 'pleasure' is in there. It gives the President some latitude, but it doesn't give him control of US attorneys so he can manipulate the Justice system as a political tool.
- JedicodeWarrior, on 02/15/2008, -2/+6About ***** time these candy-asses did something.
- inactive, on 02/15/2008, -3/+6They are one and the same. Read about them here:
http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/112.html - getjustin, on 02/15/2008, -2/+5I'll believe it when I see it.
- Terr01, on 02/15/2008, -3/+6Hear hear. At least as far as the senate is concerned, Democrats shouldn't be concerned with picking up new seats as much as kicking those memebers of the blue-dog group (no relation to the blue-man group) who are practically Republicans when it comes to unconstitutionality and the executive branch.
- jumpyg1258, on 02/15/2008, -2/+5Im surprised this article hasnt been modded as Inaccurate yet by the bury brigade since Ron Paul was one of the republicans who voted along with the Dems against the WH.
- nukepuppy, on 02/15/2008, -1/+4whats so hard to understand for these drama emo republicans? if the bill sucks.. do not pass it. period! who cares if bush cant go to his africa trip... the whole thing is embarassing for republicans.
- richard2, on 02/15/2008, -2/+5It seems to me that the USA has become a dictatorship masquerading as a democracy.
I think the power granted to the President by the Constitution should be greatly reduced. - billyjack1958, on 02/15/2008, -2/+5Exactly! This is not political and about Republicans or Democrats....this is about defending and upholding the Constitution. Every one of those representatives violated their oaths of office by walking out. If you or I violate the terms of our employment, we get fired. Every Congressman and every Senator who has voted against the Constitution needs to be fired for failing to uphold their oaths of office. I don't think we should be waiting until they seek re-election, they need to be fired Now! Any ideas on how we the people (I think there are now literally millions of us) can fire these traitors who have violated their oath of office? Petitions? I'm all ears.........
- overtoke, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3BUSH HAS AIDES, PEOPLE - IT'S FUNNY
- overtoke, on 02/15/2008, -2/+5It has already been proven political. The people were fired based on what they were investigating (ie Vote Fraud, 911)
- gernblansted, on 02/15/2008, -1/+4There's a reason the word 'pleasure' is in that sentence. US Attorneys have to work within ethical guidelines by law. They cannot initiate an investigation for the purpose of creating a negative impression against someone the President doesn't like - an investigation can only be initiated if the US Attorney in question feels the evidence warrants an investigation. If the President fires a US Attorney for not initiating an investigation against a political foe (which certainly appears to be the case for some of the recently fired US Attorneys) then the firing is illegal. US Attorneys cannot act as a political hammer for the President, and the President cannot legally fire them for not politicizing the Justice Department.
So, in short, NO - The President can't fire a US Attorney for ANY reason, even if he can fire them for many reasons. - Thuktun, on 02/15/2008, -2/+5Simply enforcing what the President is /actually/ granted by the Constitution would be nice. Bush simply ignores the laws and articles of the Constitution that he doesn't care for, and nobody calls him on it.
It's time that changed. - eir574, on 02/15/2008, -3/+5The bigger issue is whether executive privilege allows Bush to refuse to have his aides respond to Congressional subpoenas. With this particular issue, it's especially hard to believe that Bush could use national security as a defense, so it may be a good opportunity for Congress to question the precedent he's trying to set.
- GhostyBoy, on 02/16/2008, -0/+2The Republicans walked out? Keep it up and maybe they won't come back!
- drowningfish, on 02/15/2008, -2/+4eh... the Democrats will cave like they always do. Their figurative back-bone is weak, and won't withstand the pressure before they are forced to their knees bowing to BushCo as they always end up doing.....
I hope I am wrong. - mbelrose, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2I agree with your sentiment, but I couldn't help hearing the Batman theme when I read that.
- eir574, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3Executive privilege itself is, of course, not new. Whether or not it can be used to prevent aides from testifying in any and all situations seems to be an open question. Should Nixon aides have not had to testify about the Watergate break in? Clearly, privilege can't be absolute.
- eosp, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3Well, that's an abstention. More votes aye. Sounds good.
- inactive, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3 It has indeed...Deplorable,just deplorable.
- fuzzynyanko, on 02/15/2008, -2/+4Has the House of Representatives grown some balls? Better question: if yes, is it a temporary swell?
- Acewrap, on 02/15/2008, -2/+4It's never too late for justice.
- gernblansted, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2Traditionally, every President replaces all US Attorneys at the start of their term, and politics plays a part in who replaces them (they are of the same political party). Once appointed, ethical guidelines and Federal law are supposed to direct the actions of a US Attorney and not political considerations or the fear of being fired because they didn't play ball outside of those guidelines. The President may NOT fire a US Attorney for political purposes, like say firing a US Attorney for properly convicting someone the President likes (Randy 'Duke' Cunningham), or refusing to investigate 'the other side' just before an election for the purpose of influencing the election, even though the US Attorney in question determined there wasn't enough evidence.
- mleh, on 02/15/2008, -1/+3Like I've said before, the Democrats will wait for Bush and Cheney to leave office, THEN announce "oh we were just getting ready to impeach them, OMG SWAERZ!" They won't hold anyone accountable for anything this country has endured for the past few years, and it'll be another day in Big Government with nothing accomplished.
- Thuktun, on 02/15/2008, -3/+5Legal != Ethical
- TrevaLVF, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Which is why Congress should agree to impeach Cheney and Bush instead of just going after their aides.
- m4lomb, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1I demand nothing short of waterboarding and life time in Guantanamo bay for those bastards. Executions would be nice too. Make an example out of them.
- TrevaLVF, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Me too.
- razor150, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2His Justice Dept. won't prosecute them so in the end nothing will happen. The Justice Dept. really needs to be removed from the Executive branch or at the very least havemeasures created to make sure it is independent from both Congress and the President.
- ronaldinho, on 02/15/2008, -2/+3Something is finally going right
- Desidarius, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1As long as the government remains firmly in the claws of the two party system/democrats and republicans, there will never be a third party politician that has the power to change anything.
Dangit, this is supposed to be a reply to mloger. - Chanceous, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Excellent drama on Capitol Hill. For those interested, applications to the Congressional Page program and White House internships are avail at www.cinume.com.
- inactive, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2If someone breaks the law and it's not enforced then the law is useless. Just like if the constitution is not enforced then the constitution is useless as well. In the words of george bush "it's just a goddam piece of paper" and he is right because no one enforces it.
- millyuns, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Nope. It should be co-equal to the other two branches of government, just like it says in the Constitution. The American public should make it very uncomfortable for him to over-arch his powers and to attempt to cover his tracks as Bush&Co have done. Very uncomfortable. But I don't see the public growing any wiser any time soon.
-
Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is