Are we Heading towards a Constitutional Crisis

Post Reply New Topic

By militarily, do you mean "sell missiles to them"? Because that's the only thing he did with Iran.

Well, that and put Saddam Hussein in power to fight a proxy war with Iran. No direct engagement, though.

So from the actual history, you're full of it and have no clue what "Reagan" (he had no impact on policy when you actually get to reading about his terms as president) would have and did do.

Was President Reagan for sure involved though? You can make a charge about certain senior officials, but there was never anything that directly connected Reagan to this as far as we know.

Like I said in my post, I honestly think Reagan was nothing more than a figurehead for a conglomerate that made up most of his "staff" in key positions. Reagan was a mascot and he continues to be one today.

However, what his conglomeration did was all of what was described above with regards to their dealings with Iran.

Reagan was more than a mascot, this can happen in any Presidency, someone goes and does something behind the President's back so that if/when there is a fallout the President has plausible deniability.

I think that you are probably right. But he was elected president, and he has a mandate to make those decisions. Just because a decision is politically motivated does not make it either wrongful or wrong.



I think you need to distinguish between defiance of a court order, and seeking a court's own order to withhold application of its judgement pending appeal. There is absolutely nothing contrary to the rule of law to seek an order from a court (as the administration has done both with respect to the drilling ban litigation and the health care legislation litigation).

Further, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the government taking a court's order under advisement, and taking new action in the expectation that its new action will pass scrutiny (as the administration is likely to do on the drilling ban).



It remains the prerogative of the state to discontinue prosecution at any point--but no administration can ever "order the dismissal" of a matter, and no judge would ever agree to receive such an order. It can only order its own prosecutors to back down.

Now, you are perfectly correct to hold the administration accountable for this decision--but you cannot pretend that it is a violation of the principles of rule of law.

Actually it does due to his oath of office.



The White House was found in contempt of court.



Maybe, but it reached the point where he was breaking the law.



Uh in a situation like that, it is considered an abuse of power, you wouldn't be singing that tune if a President Palin let a bunch of white guys with clubs threaten black people at the polls walk away scot free.

The black panther incident is a shame, I would say it constitutes treason, he has a duty to protect everyone, the perpetration of race motivated crime should not be tolerated even if it did benefit him.(aka even if it was done in his interest)

The technical term is plausible deniability. Don't leave home without it.

ruveyn

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookou ... rriage-act

Agreed, that right there is probably enough (if you can get evidence showing he directly ordered the dismissal) to impeach him.

That said I *really* *really* hope no one tries. Everyone loves the victim and no matter how much he might swing wide as a president impeachment attempts would likely wash it even and get him another four years. No one could want Obama impeachment hearings more than the dems.

Depends on the evidence, the Republicans would have to have some pretty damning evidence for an ironclad case if they went for impeachment. Otherwise you are right the Democrats would be able to spin it, if the evidence is good enough though, the Democrats could end up hurt rather than helped.

Oh god no, an impeachment would be a disaster, and would give him the opportunity for way to much political play.

As I see it he's going down next election, maybe impeach him if he gets reelected.