Ferret, what are your problems!!?? so now someone gave some answers on experience. No, I didn't go looking him up but this isn't the first time I asked what his experiences where. You, of course, are so misguided by your Bush hate that you can only spew off jr.high school type of attacks on Bush instead of really give some good information. Sorry if being a lawyer doesn't hit well with me - so the only experience you can say he has is 7 years in state senate. That part tells something, now how about his record there? Try to act like an adult and not add in some hate speech...
So he's a constitution lawyer and doesn't know that gun control and nationalized health care are unconstitutional? Sounds like he just wants more power instead of wanting to uphold the constitution which would be his job as the president.
Actually, I don't yet know his stance on gun control, or national health care. I would ask, though, on what basis do you believe either gun control or national health care should be considered unconstitutional? I ask, as the record is far from clear, for me. For example, some others' thoughts on gun control and constitutionality (lifted from Thoughts on Gun Control): -Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, December 16, 1991 -Former Solictor General and Dean of the Harvard Law School, Erwin Griswold, "Phantom Second Amendment 'Rights' " Washington Post, November 4, 1990 -American Bar Association Coordinating Committee on Gun Violence, "Second Amendment Issues" -Robert Bork, quoted in "Bork Says State Gun Laws Constitutional," Los Angeles Times, March 15, 1989, Part 2 pg 5 I make this (admittedly) cut and paste merely to indicate that the "unconstitionality" of gun control is far from established; in fact, through court history, I'd say, quite the opposite. It seems to me the Supreme Court has consistently adjudicated that some form of gun control is, indeed, within the letter and intent of the Constitution. I am curious where you are going regarding national health care and constitutionality.
Its called socialism....its the same thing shrillary wants...one of her professors at yale called her the most socialist person he had ever met or seen in history books...their mentality is "give me what I want, or I will just take it."
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As you may have noticed, the second amendment does not say that the right of a well regulated militia has the right to keep and bear arms, but the right of the people. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This means that assuming gun control is fine and dandy, it is none of the federal governments business and should be left up to the states. Nationalized health care is unconstitutional for the same reason, no power to provide medical services through borrowing money is given to the federal government therefore it is left to the states.
So, if I am hearing you right, your issue is a states' right issue, fundamentally, in terms of why you believe both are unconstitutional?
Yes, the states being able to decide things on their own and learn from the mistakes of other states is an essential part of the constitution. That way, the whole country won't be screwed up based on the bad choices of the legislative branch.
Well, at least he is consistent. I mean, we know full well his IS a democrat. In true democrat style he says one thing, and does another. You know, I was not gonna run for president before I decided to run for president.
And the court has abdicated 150 year of precedence with the formation of federally organized social programs. The court only needs appointments of a certain leaning to produce huge shifts in the political perspective. While the courts are by far the most reputable part of our governing system, they too are not without flaw. You got to ask yourself...why would it take so long to form a precendence that counteracts our history? Is it because it true or is it because the times and situation 'differ'? If it was up to political will, we'd be something different now. Even a few years after our founding there was big debate over the meaning, but the literal interpetation differed in a small manner. Fortunately Jefferson's general views won out over Hamilton (for a 120 years), and showed us a more inclusive format of the law. As I've always seen it....the left sometimes ignore everything before the bill of rights and the right sometimes ignores part of the bill of rights. Neither preaches the whole, nor does either poltical party promote the whole. http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm Maybe the Veto Presidents will come back again.
I went and saw obama speak yesterday the guy is pretty smooth and he will give billary a very tough run. He was against the Iraq war from the start and is also a constitutional scholar something none of our presidents have been. And we have a republican to thank for barck obama being in office. When he was first running for office he was running against Jack Ryan, a bigwig at Goldman Sachs and exhusband of Jeri Ryan(7 of Nine), and obama was behind in the polls something like 15 points behind, then it comes out that jack ryan was taking his smoking hot wife to sex clubs even after this comes out the race was close but ryan was still up in the polls. Well the republican governor of illinois, who was also the party chief pulled the plug on the ryan campain and the guy was still up in the polls, the idiot alan keyes tried to run in ryans spot and got destroyed. And now we are stuck with obama.
Yet he's a democrat....? I wonder what the likelyhood of Washington, Jefferson, Madison or Hamilton....coming out of their grave and just giving this kid a thumbs up for his party or his thoughts. Somehow I doubt it, even though I'm sure they would be suprised by his race. Perhaps I'm being a bit pessemistic, but I think our founder would probably put two thumb down for both parties. Although I'm sure some of the people would get a thumbs-up...
Funny thing is, if they could put aside their own egos and team up together, a Hillary/Obama ticket would lock up a guaranteed win. Divide and conquer
I don't like Giuliani, either. But please inform me on Kerick....who is that? ------------------------ Personally, even though I don't think he has a chance...I roughly like Newt Gingrich. Although I'm assuming he wouldn't win primaries...because of his background/behaviour. Although him (as VP) with a traditional blue state Republican would be a nicer alternative in my opinion...than most Dems. It would appeal to me in sense that blue state Republican will likely have a semi-even hand approach, but also being backed by an incredible mind [Newt]. Newt is probably the smartest person running [well, not yet], but to a point I think his leadership skills are lacking ie he gives up to easily. It's really hard to gauge how effective a person is as president...till they are president. I'm guessing that why they pick governors most often,...because they have some skill in such.
kerrick is shady ex-NYC cop who is Giuliani's guy Giuliani recommended him to head homeland security, it didn't go over too well in the vetting process He is real into insider deals http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6684832/ possible mob ties http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/26/national/main1662787.shtml He supposed has mistresses stuck away, in secret condos around manhatten