Re: You can Join the Campaign to Impeach Obama
Jimbo
> https://fs7.formsite.com/C4Strategies/form272402400/secure_index.html
>
> Just sign the petition
You should read the US Constitution, a petition drive won't impeach a
president.
Joe Bruno
The petition is to the House of Represetatives, jackass, where all
impeachments begin.
last_per...@yahoo.com
Why do you hate Obammy so much Bluto? Isn't he and Klintoon kissing
ZioNazi ass enough for you? Is it because all Iranians haven't been
slaughtered yet?
martin
> https://fs7.formsite.com/C4Strategies/form272402400/secure_index.html
>
> Just sign the petition
love it, a petition from a birther-kook
Joe Bruno
The petition is from Floyd Brown, not me.
Iarnrod
There has to be a reason, dope. His being black ain't enough.
martin
Did I say it was from you? No!
I said "love it, a petition from a birther-kook" now, you might have
thought I was referring to you, but then that would mean you were a
birther-kook. Are you?
Matt Silberstein
<joeb...@usa.com> in
<26010ca4-fc03-4cdf...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
Did it list any crimes? Or are you still arguing that you are going to
impeach a popular president for being unpopular?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Joe Bruno
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 05:33:20 -0800 (PST), in alt.atheism , Joe Bruno
> <26010ca4-fc03-4cdf-bb76-c8c9103fe...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 4, 3:31 am, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 4, 5:44 am, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >> >https://fs7.formsite.com/C4Strategies/form272402400/secure_index.html
>
> >> > Just sign the petition
>
> >> You should read the US Constitution, a petition drive won't impeach a
> >> president.
>
> >The petition is to the House of Represetatives, jackass, where all
> >impeachments begin.
>
> Did it list any crimes? Or are you still arguing that you are going to
> impeach a popular president for being unpopular?
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>
>
> "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Why don't you read it, dimwit?
Stile4aly
Impeachment requires that the President must be guilty of a high crime
or misdemeanor. What crime is the President guilty of?
Iarnrod
Being black.
Jimbo
A petition cannot instigate impeachment procedings, dumbass. Again,
read your Constitution.
Jimbo
Probably another kook.
Jimbo
>
> > "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are the one that wants us to sign it, you present a case for it.
Jimbo
You'll probably just hear crickets on this question.
Don Martin
> https://fs7.formsite.com/C4Strategies/form272402400/secure_index.html
>
> Just sign the petition
I'll sign as soon as you lot bring criminal charges against G.W. Bush.
Christopher A. Lee
The Republicans turned impeachment from trial for high crimes and
misdemeanours, into another political tool to try and get rid of a
popular President they didn't like.
They would see criminal charges against Bush in the same light.
They also turned the International Criminal Court into a political
circus, going after foreign political leaders they don't like while
ignoring their own misdeeds and those of their friends.
BDK
@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, iar...@yahoo.com says...
That's more than reason for the bigots out there. Losers all.
--
BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
BDK
37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, joeb...@usa.com says...
But you apparently agree with it, and that makes you a birthtard,
currently the most insane of the insane kooktards out there.
See, you really ARE special. Like your parents always claimed.
BDK
says...
Is that really in question?
Bob
news:56213e40-10e5-4293...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
*********************************************
Perjury :)
JayPee Vee
> "Stile4aly" <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Irrelevant, dismissed.
Are you an adult, Bob?
Syd M.
> https://fs7.formsite.com/C4Strategies/form272402400/secure_index.html
>
> Just sign the petition
Sorry, got better things to do then humor a bigot.
PDW
Brian E. Clark
37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, joeb...@usa.com says...
> > love it, a petition from a birther-kook
>
> The petition is from Floyd Brown, not me.
Yes, it's the same Floyd Brown of "Willie Horton" fame.
What a fine, trustworthy man to follow.
(Your instant self-identification of yourself as a "birther
kook" was rather amusing, however.)
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Brian E. Clark
RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com says...
> Did it list any crimes?
The proposed indictment is a hoot, actually, and it's aimed
squarely at the birthers and tea partiers:
unlawfully exercised the authority of his office to take
private property for public use in violation of the
Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which
guarantees to the People that "private property shall
not be taken for public use without just compensation,"
and without "due process of law";
No details provided.
unlawfully interfered with the management of private
companies for the purpose of achieving government
control of them, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of
the United States Constitution.
The Fifth Amendment does not, of course, mention the
management of private companies at all.
unlawfully interfered with the economic rights of the
People by imposing unreasonable impairments in the
fulfillment of their intended contractual obligations,
and their ability to enter into such contracts, and
attempting to change our fundamental economic system,
where there is no significant or legitimate public
purpose to do so.
The Constitution does not describe a "fundamental economic
system" for our nation, nor does it proscribe changing the
economic system. (Regardless, the pro-corporate Obama is
hardly interested in changing the fundamentals of the
economic system, endless accusations of socialism
notwithstanding.)
And of course, there had to be this:
unlawfully engaged in a conspiracy to suppress evidence
of the true place of his birth. This obstruction of
justice has resulted in a violation of the
Constitutional provision that a President of the United
States must be a natural born citizen.
The most hypocritical of all the charges follows:
unlawfully refused his assent to the Laws of the United
States, and exercised false powers of veto that are
contrary to Constitution.
I call this hypocritical because George W. Bush, the
president beloved of the people who want Obama to be
impeached, was the most thoroughgoing scofflaw president
this nation has ever endured, routinely and indeed
arrogantly refusing to enforce or obey the laws had
Congress passed.
fla...@verizon.net
As wrong as "Joe" is on this subject,
Obama's *color* has nothing to do with it.
I would be willing to et anything you name on it.
Susan
Jimbo
Exactly, of all of our presidents in the modern era GW Bush was the
most impeachable.
Jimbo
> "Stile4aly" <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Details?
hypa...@comcast.net
> https://fs7.formsite.com/C4Strategies/form272402400/secure_index.html
>
> Just sign the petition
No.
Bob
news:42180d26-bbb1-4f68...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
***************************************
Lincoln wins hands down.
Jimbo
> "Jimbo" <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Hmmm... Good point. Although GW Bush is next in line.
Clairbear
c2b32d...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
Were that true I am sure nasty Nancy would have done it. Simple reasons for
not doing it was the dems, too, live in glass houses. In Washington it is
often the wink wink. nod nod. that keeps the
parties from really ripping each other apart completely. The whole Clinton
thing was just a piece of theater over a blowjob.
As to impeaching Obama What would they impeach him for?Not getting the
Olympicsand wasting money on a trip to not get it or perhaps recieve the
Nobel for actions he has yet to accomplish.
It's a waste of time, Besides nobody want Biden the human gaffe machine as
president
Jimbo
> Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote in news:42180d26-bbb1-4f68-b533-
> c2b32da53...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Nov 4, 12:12 pm, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 4, 5:44 am, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >> >https://fs7.formsite.com/C4Strategies/form272402400/secure_index.html
>
> >> > Just sign the petition
>
> >> I'll sign as soon as you lot bring criminal charges against G.W. Bush.
>
> > Exactly, of all of our presidents in the modern era GW Bush was the
> > most impeachable.
>
> Were that true I am sure nasty Nancy would have done it. Simple reasons for
> not doing it was the dems, too,
They didn't do it because you need a super majority to agree to it,
the dems did not have those numbers while GW Bush was in office. That
doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been done. I mean c'mon!
Unconsituttional wiretaps, unconstitutional data mining into private
phone records, torture, etc...etc... It's a long list.
MarkA
> https://fs7.formsite.com/C4Strategies/form272402400/secure_index.html
>
> Just sign the petition
Where's the petition to impeach Bush?
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Jimbo
> Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote in news:42180d26-bbb1-4f68-b533-
> c2b32da53...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> On Nov 4, 5:44 am, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >> >https://fs7.formsite.com/C4Strategies/form272402400/secure_index.html
>
> >> > Just sign the petition
>
> >> I'll sign as soon as you lot bring criminal charges against G.W. Bush.
>
> > Exactly, of all of our presidents in the modern era GW Bush was the
> > most impeachable.
>
> Were that true I am sure nasty Nancy would have done it.
Impeachement requires a 2/3rds vote of the Senate, the democrats did
not have the numbers.
Clairbear
news:695e4ea1-6d8f-4e91...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
Your conjecture is proof of nothing other than your own bias. Fact is there
was no impeachable evidence that would not have incriminated dems too. As a
result the dems did not have the political will even if the could find any
evidence
Clairbear
news:0cf34233-5b8d-478d...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
Actually coviction would require 2/3rds not the articles of impeachment
Clairbear
@nowhere.com:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:44:07 -0800, Joe Bruno wrote:
>
>> https://fs7.formsite.com/C4Strategies/form272402400/secure_index.html
>>
>> Just sign the petition
>
> Where's the petition to impeach Bush?
>
There is noneBesides you can only impeach a sitting president
As to Obama there is no grounds for it
Hope for the Heartless
<42180d26-bbb1-4f68...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ronald Reagan was a close second. Remembers arms for hostages?
Helping drug runners to raise money for murdering thugs in central
America?
I consider that on a par with GWB at his worst.
And the scum that helped run that show became icons of the Republican
party.
Jimbo
> Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote innews:695e4ea1-6d8f-4e91...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 5, 9:36 am, Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote:
> >> Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote in news:42180d26-bbb1-4f68-b533-
> >> c2b32da53...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Nov 4, 12:12 pm, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Nov 4, 5:44 am, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >https://fs7.formsite.com/C4Strategies/form272402400/secure_index.h
> >> >> >tml
>
> >> >> > Just sign the petition
>
> >> >> I'll sign as soon as you lot bring criminal charges against G.W.
> >> >> Bush.
>
> >> > Exactly, of all of our presidents in the modern era GW Bush was the
> >> > most impeachable.
>
> >> Were that true I am sure nasty Nancy would have done it. Simple
> >> reasons f
> > or
> >> not doing it was the dems, too,
>
> > They didn't do it because you need a super majority to agree to it,
> > the dems did not have those numbers while GW Bush was in office. That
> > doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been done. I mean c'mon!
> > Unconsituttional wiretaps, unconstitutional data mining into private
> > phone records, torture, etc...etc... It's a long list.
>
> Your conjecture is proof of nothing other than your own bias. Fact is there
> was no impeachable evidence
Bullshit.
fla...@verizon.net
Lincoln was in the middle of a war, tho'!
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Nov-2009, Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Exactly, of all of our presidents in the modern era GW Bush was the
> > > most impeachable.
> >
> > Were that true I am sure nasty Nancy would have done it.
>
> Impeachement requires a 2/3rds vote of the Senate, the democrats did
> not have the numbers.
Democrats can't get together to act to sve their own lives!!
Susan
Clairbear
news:76362842-0d17-4e60...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 5, 11:15�pm, Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote:
>> Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:695e4ea1-6d8f-4e91-a5d9-4a6b0401
> a5...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 5, 9:36�am, Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote in news:42180d26-bbb1-4f68-b533-
>> >> c2b32da53...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Nov 4, 12:12�pm, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Nov 4, 5:44�am, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >https://fs7.formsite.com/C4Strategies/form272402400/secure_inde
>> >> >> >x.h tml
>>
>> >> >> > Just sign the petition
>>
>> >> >> I'll sign as soon as you lot bring criminal charges against
>> >> >> G.W. Bush.
>>
>> >> > Exactly, of all of our presidents in the modern era GW Bush was
>> >> > the most impeachable.
>>
>> >> Were that true I am sure nasty Nancy would have done it. Simple
>> >> reasons f
>> > or
>> >> not doing it was the dems, too,
>>
>> > They didn't do it because you need a super majority to agree to it,
>> > the dems did not have those numbers while GW Bush was in office.
>> > �Tha
> t
>> > doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been done. � I mean c'mon!
>> > Unconsituttional wiretaps, unconstitutional data mining into
>> > private phone records, torture, etc...etc... �It's a long list.
>>
>> Your conjecture is proof of nothing other than your own bias. Fact is
>> the
> re
>> was no impeachable evidence
>
> Bullshit.
>
Very astute reply You must really make you parents proud
So if there was evidence present it to us And not just the unproven
allegations you libs so love spout
Jimbo
> Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote innews:695e4ea1-6d8f-4e91...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 5, 9:36 am, Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote:
> >> Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote in news:42180d26-bbb1-4f68-b533-
> >> c2b32da53...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Nov 4, 12:12 pm, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Nov 4, 5:44 am, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >https://fs7.formsite.com/C4Strategies/form272402400/secure_index.h
> >> >> >tml
>
> >> >> > Just sign the petition
>
> >> >> I'll sign as soon as you lot bring criminal charges against G.W.
> >> >> Bush.
>
> >> > Exactly, of all of our presidents in the modern era GW Bush was the
> >> > most impeachable.
>
> >> Were that true I am sure nasty Nancy would have done it. Simple
> >> reasons f
> > or
> >> not doing it was the dems, too,
>
> > They didn't do it because you need a super majority to agree to it,
> > the dems did not have those numbers while GW Bush was in office. That
> > doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been done. I mean c'mon!
> > Unconsituttional wiretaps, unconstitutional data mining into private
> > phone records, torture, etc...etc... It's a long list.
>
> Your conjecture is proof of nothing
Conjecture? The unwarranted wiretaps were ruled unconstitional in
two federal courts, and the SCOTUS put the kibosh on the datamining.
It's hardly conjecture.
Jimbo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not really an excuse to violate the consitution, is it?
Jimbo
> Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote innews:76362842-0d17-4e60...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 5, 11:15 pm, Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote:
> >> Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:695e4ea1-6d8f-4e91-a5d9-4a6b0401
As much as a bush ass-suck deserves.
Matt Silberstein
<joeb...@usa.com> in
<75301144-b426-4143...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>On Nov 4, 8:01�am, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 05:33:20 -0800 (PST), in alt.atheism , Joe Bruno
>> <joebr...@usa.com> in
>> <26010ca4-fc03-4cdf-bb76-c8c9103fe...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Nov 4, 3:31�am, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 4, 5:44�am, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >https://fs7.formsite.com/C4Strategies/form272402400/secure_index.html
>>
>> >> > Just sign the petition
>>
>> >> You should read the US Constitution, a petition drive won't impeach a
>> >> president.
>>
>> >The petition is to the House of Represetatives, jackass, where all
>> >impeachments begin.
>>
>> Did it list any crimes? Or are you still arguing that you are going to
>> impeach a popular president for being unpopular?
>>
>
>Why don't you read it, dimwit?
You support such nonsense like that and call me a dimwit? How sad for
you. Worse yet, you need me to agree with you far more than I need
you. When your party is at 15% support you can't afford to alienate
people just because you feel bad.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Iarnrod
Why, is he standing?
Alex W.
> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:pan.2009.11.05.20.00.36.300579
> @nowhere.com:
>>
>> Where's the petition to impeach Bush?
>>
>
> There is noneBesides you can only impeach a sitting president
... or a lying president!
Clairbear
$.d...@40tude.net:
Sio why do YOU want to inpeach Obama most of his false promises were made
before you and your ilk fell prey to his dubious charms. But still even if
Joe Wilson is right if we impeached every one who lies we would not have
anyone in DC. So stop trying to impeach Obama if he screws up suficiently
he will be voted out in 2012 unless the mayans are right.
fla...@verizon.net
On 6-Nov-2009, Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Lincoln wins hands down.
> >
> > > Hmmm... �Good point.
> >
> > Lincoln was in the middle of a war, tho'!
> >
> > Susan- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Not really an excuse to violate the consitution, is it?
Actually, it was in his case - that's the point.
Susan
Jimbo
Well, let me rephrase. It shouldn't be an excuse to violate the
constitution.
fla...@verizon.net
It's great to have principles, and even better to adhere to them.
But sometimes we have to understand that it's necessary to
do what's expedient for the greater good.
Susan
Jimbo
> On 9-Nov-2009, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 7, 10:31 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > On 6-Nov-2009, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Lincoln wins hands down.
>
> > > > > > Hmmm... Good point.
>
> > > > > Lincoln was in the middle of a war, tho'!
>
> > > > > Susan- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Not really an excuse to violate the consitution, is it?
>
> > > Actually, it was in his case - that's the point.
>
> > > Susan
>
> > Well, let me rephrase. It shouldn't be an excuse to violate the
> > constitution.
>
> It's great to have principles,
And law is even better...
> and even better to adhere to them.
> But sometimes we have to understand that it's necessary to
> do what's expedient for the greater good.
I disagree. A Constitution isn't simply a piece of paper to disregard
at the whim of one politician.
fla...@verizon.net
On 10-Nov-2009, Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well, let me rephrase. �It shouldn't be an excuse to violate the
> > > constitution.
> >
> > It's great to have principles,
>
> And law is even better...
>
Ok, I was being "poetic".
> > and even better to adhere to them.
> > But sometimes we have to understand that it's necessary to
> > do what's expedient for the greater good.
>
> I disagree. A Constitution isn't simply a piece of paper to disregard
> at the whim of one politician.
But I'm not talking about a "whim."
I'm talking about overwhelming circumstances.
Susan
Jimbo
> On 10-Nov-2009, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Well, let me rephrase. It shouldn't be an excuse to violate the
> > > > constitution.
>
> > > It's great to have principles,
>
> > And law is even better...
>
> Ok, I was being "poetic".
>
> > > and even better to adhere to them.
> > > But sometimes we have to understand that it's necessary to
> > > do what's expedient for the greater good.
>
> > I disagree. A Constitution isn't simply a piece of paper to disregard
> > at the whim of one politician.
>
> But I'm not talking about a "whim."
That's exactly what you are talking about. No one person may, EVER,
disregard the founding document of this country. That is the very
reason for having a constitution. Otherwise we would call it a
'suggestion', or perhaps a 'bill of not so much'. It is called a
Constitution for a reason, because it is iron clad, and requires that
certain steps be taken and conditions be met before stepping outside
of it. These conditions and steps were not met during the Bush
administration.
Dr. Franklin said it best when talking about 'the greater good".
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve
neither and will lose both."
> I'm talking about overwhelming circumstances.
The Constitution provides for overwhelming circumstances, which
includes the declaration of martial law. The criteria for this was
not met, nor was martial law ever declared.
So, basically, yes, it boiled down to a whim of one man.
fla...@verizon.net
On 10-Nov-2009, Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 10:40�am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 10-Nov-2009, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Well, let me rephrase. �It shouldn't be an excuse to violate the
> > > > > constitution.
> >
> > > > It's great to have principles,
> >
> > > And law is even better...
> >
> > Ok, I was being "poetic".
> >
> > > > and even better to adhere to them.
> > > > But sometimes we have to understand that it's necessary to
> > > > do what's expedient for the greater good.
> >
> > > I disagree. �A Constitution isn't simply a piece of paper to disregard
> > > at the whim of one politician.
> >
> > But I'm not talking about a "whim."
>
> That's exactly what you are talking about. No one person may, EVER,
> disregard the founding document of this country.
I am not talking about a whim.
Susan
Jimbo
Then perhaps you would care to define exactly what it is you are
talking about, and how it applies to what was happening at the time of
Lincoln.
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-Nov-2009, Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > That's exactly what you are talking about. �No one person may, EVER,
> > > disregard the founding document of this country.
> >
> > I am not talking about a whim.
> >
>
> Then perhaps you would care to define exactly what it is you are
> talking about, and how it applies to what was happening at the time of
> Lincoln.
I am talking about emergency situations - such as the Civil War.
What else could I have been discussing?
OTOH, I would like to know why you called his actions whimsical.
Susan
Jimbo
> On 11-Nov-2009, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > That's exactly what you are talking about. No one person may, EVER,
> > > > disregard the founding document of this country.
>
> > > I am not talking about a whim.
>
> > Then perhaps you would care to define exactly what it is you are
> > talking about, and how it applies to what was happening at the time of
> > Lincoln.
>
> I am talking about emergency situations - such as the Civil War.
The civil war was not an emergency. Some states succeded from the
country, deratified and simply wished to go their own way. The war
was avoidable, and going to war with those states was, in itself,
unconstitutional. Lincoln never declared Martial Law, which would
have been the REQUISITE procedure for suspending HC, and violated the
Constitution in hundreds of other ways.
> What else could I have been discussing?
> OTOH, I would like to know why you called his actions whimsical.
Because his actions was based on his whim, not on established law.
fla...@verizon.net
On 12-Nov-2009, Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 3:55�pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 11-Nov-2009, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > That's exactly what you are talking about. �No one person may,
> > > > >EVER,
> > > > > disregard the founding document of this country.
> >
> > > > I am not talking about a whim.
> >
> > > Then perhaps you would care to define exactly what it is you are
> > > talking about, and how it applies to what was happening at the time of
> > > Lincoln.
> >
> > I am talking about emergency situations - such as the Civil War.
>
> The civil war was not an emergency.
Never mind.
Susan
Jimbo
fla...@verizon.net
You obviously know many things that are wrong.
Susan