Skip to main content

View Diary: DOJ OPR Says Nixon was Right All Along (17 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Constitution is a permissive (0+ / 0-)

    document.  That is, it outlines what the various branches of government may and must do.  It is not prohibitive.  That is, it doesn't address what the agents of government should NOT do.

    Our Congress has been in error in trying to weasel out of its legislative responsibilities by coming up with new prohibitions, both for the agents of government and the ordinary citizen--i.e. governing person.  They do this because it's easy and flatters their egos.  Being a public servant turns out not to be much fun, if the public actually expects work to be done.

    President Nixon resigned because his subordinates were disloyal and set him up to look like what the press had always wanted to call him--a crook.  Efforts are now under way to "prove" that Nixon was briefed on the break-in for no good reason at the Watergate.  It was a set-up and while the caper played out, some of the rats were conveniently somewhere else.  Nixon had done real damage to some interests by taking the U.S. off the gold standard.  He tried to mitigate the potential inflation by putting in place price controls.  One suspects the financiers were not happy.  One can also guess that they've been working ever since to regain control of the nation's currency--creating artificial scarcity where it used to be "naturally" because of the albatross of gold.

    Was not handing management of U.S. currency to the private banks the most significant privatization ever?
    Why does the Treasury dole out dollars to banks and then borrow them back at triple the interest rate?  Why does this make more sense than doling dollars out to insurance companies so they can tell us we can't have care?

    How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

    by hannah on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 10:19:27 AM PST

    •  Well, (0+ / 0-)

      That is, it doesn't address what the agents of government should NOT do.

      The Bill of Rights does mention a thing or two, not that it matters.

      So if the Constitution says "congress shall make no law" to do something, is it perfectly OK for it to be done by Presidential decree?

      What would Yoo say?

      They see me trollin'. They hatin'

      by obnoxiotheclown on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 10:31:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Bill of Rights is inconsistent (0+ / 0-)

        with the rest.  That's why some people objected.  Also, the designation is a misnomer and gives the impression that the enumerated rights are the sum total, instead of being the ones most likely to be disrespected.  
        The way I would read the speech amendment would be to say that not even when a person is suspected of crime may his speech be coerced or used against his interest.  Instead, we've got law enforcement arguing that there are "protected" classes and people charged with crime are one such.  Which is why, if they can trick a person into providing incriminating evidence BEFORE they come up with a charge, it's OK.  And, if they can "detain" someone and extract information which they don't intend to use in court, it's OK.

        How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

        by hannah on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 11:10:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Was it the ninth or tenth (0+ / 0-)

          that was supposed to take care of that?

          Also, the designation is a misnomer and gives the impression that the enumerated rights are the sum total, instead of being the ones most likely to be disrespected.  

          Let's see, privacy and abortion... I think that's all that came of that one.  

          They see me trollin'. They hatin'

          by obnoxiotheclown on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 11:18:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site