Bush and the DC case

[Bruxley]

You realize your post confirmes what I said, that the VP has no administrative role in the Senate and no voice in the Senate past breaking a tie right? He has no voice as 'President of The Senate' outside of that role.

I said only that Cheney was speaking in his constitutionally designated role as President of the Senate, and that he was NOT speaking for the administration.

Do you have something to back up your statement that he was speaking for the administration?

And you do realize that it is not possible to prove something DIDN'T, only that something DID right? You can't prove a negative. Critical thinking 101, day 1.

It is incumbant on the one making the assretion to substantiate it. SO....you assertedd that Cheney was speaking as President of The Senate, substantiate please. I realize that will very difficult as speaking as President of The Senate isn't the role of VP past breaking ties but I do wait for how you will try and substantiate this until now unheard of act. You realize that the VP is in the Executive branch and that the Executive branch is what the term 'the administration' is reffering to. Unless there is a tie in the Senate at which point the 'United States'(the Exuctive branch) via the VP gets a voice among the States' will when a tie occers within the States representation in Congress (the Senate).

The House of Representative is the People's representation, the Senate is the State's representation and those make up Congress which is the legislative branch. The United States is represented by the Executive branch of which the VP is not only within, but sits in 2nd chair of, and only gets a voice when the States are tied. Then, and only then, does the executive get a voice in the Senate. This makes sense given the President gets to assert his influence via the veto.

Still waiting for those quotes BTW. Left of Obama.......Google and Youtube not bearing fruit?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The Iraqi Army as the Iraqi Army is not relevent. The relevance is that the messed up decision about the Iraqi Army is predictive of Bush not really being in touch with high level strategic decisions about his so-called polices and agenda.

There is no way around not seeing Bush as dissociated from his job and not setting a topic down agenda. I guess he never really studied strategy or management - despite being a Ivy League Legacy.

 

[Bruxley]

I guess leaving an opposing enemy's Army standing despite it's leader (Saddam Hussein) still being unaccounted for would have been the obvious choice for you but I think that may have been perceived as very risky to many.

Of course with the advantage of hindsight 5 years later alot of strategic geniuses emerge. We should elect someone with more clairvoyance. Who is the most clairvoyant candidate in your opinion? Hillary?(Oct. '02) Obama (Wright is my pastor)?

 

[publius42]

The Constitution says Cheney is President of the Senate. It's not something I invented.

If you download the brief in question and look at who signed it and in what capacity, it says this:

The following members of the United States Congress, and President of the United States Senate Richard B. Cheney, join in this amici curiae brief:

It doesn't say "the administration" or "the vice president" it says President of the US Senate RB Cheney. I didn't invent it, and it is not unheard of until now. Please substantiate your statements, and also the one about how "the administration" signed that (congressional) brief.

 

[Bruxley]

EDIT:
Appears Mr. Cheaney did speak as President of the Senate and not the Administration.http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/heller-congress-brief-2-8-08.pdf page 49.

I was wrong. I retract my past assertions about the VP speaking as the administration.

Well it appears the Dick Cheaney is our champion in the administration. Even if the President wishes to remain silent.

Thank you for finally putting some substance behind your assertion. I respect that.

Your turn GoSlash........Bush left of Obama remember.

 

[RDak]

Yes Bruxley, Pub is correct in that Cheney chose to write "President of the Senate" as his title in the signature line.

That's why alot of us think he was acting "outside" of his normal "inside" the Administration position.

You did make a good point Bruxley IMHO when you stated the 2nd Amendment was written to limit the Federal government from banning firearms. We can't expect them to be pro-gun, the founding fathers were very aware of that possibility. Good point.

However, the SG's brief, although admitting an individual right, does diminish that individual right when asking for only reasonable scrutiny. Bush has not opined differently. He has remained silent. So I can only assume he agrees with the SG.

As to Obama, he hasn't objected to any gun prohibition proposal/bill ever put before him IIRC.

 

[publius42]

If you mean a link to the brief we've been discussing all day, which is easily found on the net, yes, I can provide one:

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacMembersUSSenate.pdf

 

[Bruxley]

That's not the link we have been discussing all day. Don't start that behavior again ok.

Please read my edited post.....

 

[publius42]

OK, what behavior did I start, and when did I exhibit it previously?

All I did was reply to a post which, at the time, said only, "got a link"? and I assumed that post was in reference to the discussion at hand, so I supplied what I thought was the right link.

Which link were you asking for?

 

[Bruxley]

I conceded your assertion that the VP WAS speaking as President of the Senate and not as the Administration.

I was referring to the behavior of making stuff up. Like the assumptions about what the President's silence means. We have not been discussing the link that you provided all day. We have been discussing the link in the OP.

I'll cut and paste my edited post:

EDIT:
Appears Mr. Cheaney did speak as President of the Senate and not the Administration.http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...ief-2-8-08.pdf page 49.

I was wrong. I retract my past assertions about the VP speaking as the administration.

Well it appears the Dick Cheaney is our champion in the administration. Even if the President wishes to remain silent.

Thank you for finally putting some substance behind your assertion. I respect that.

Your turn GoSlash........Bush left of Obama remember.

 

[RDak]

Bruxley, if you were the President and your SG gave an opinion on an important Amendment to the BOR's, would you openly object if you disagreed?

If you remained silent, would that mean you agree with the SG?

I take Bush's silence as being in agreement with the SG.... can't prove it obviously.... but what else can I think?

 

[publius42]

The DOJ brief seems to be the odd man out in the Administration.

Let's get back to this original assertion, that the DOJ is somehow isolated from "the administration" by their brief, and this "fact" is proven by Cheney's signature on the Congressional brief.

The implication there is that "the administration" agrees with the Congressional brief, but that is an implication you later retracted in the face of irrefutable facts.

If you now accept that Cheney was speaking in his role as President of the Senate, and not in his role as VP, do you still contend that the administration and Cheney have the same view, and that the DOJ view is not represented within the administration? In other words, are you still saying the DOJ is "odd man out" on this issue?

Is there some evidence out there that Bush disagrees with his Justice Department's brief? Is there some evidence out there that he agrees with the Congressional brief which Senate President Cheney signed?

 

[publius42]

What did I make up? That the VP is President of the Senate, as you said in post 18? The Constitution made that one up, as I later noted.

Did I make up that Cheney signed as President of the Senate, as you said in post 21? The brief itself proved I was right.

You'll have to forgive me for assuming that silence about an employee's behavior indicates assent. I'd say it is at least as valid as your apparent assumption that silence indicates dissent. If there's no dissent, how is DOJ the "odd man out" in this case? If the dissent is based on facts and not assumptions, please post those facts.

 

[publius42]

We have not been discussing the link that you provided all day. We have been discussing the link in the OP.

In post 4 you referenced the DOJ brief, which was also heavily featured in the OP article. Apologies if that was not the link you were requesting. I'm still wondering what link you were actually requesting, since I seem to have gotten it wrong.

 

[Bruxley]

Implications and assumtions aside there appears to be no evidence either way.The aticle's assertion is that the administration is split and it's implication:

The conservative columnist Robert D. Novak, who often reflects views from inside the Bush administration, wrote Thursday in The Washington Post that there was “puzzlement over Clement” and an expectation “in government circles” that the solicitor general would “amend his position when he actually faces the justices.”

The pressure for the solictor general from the Bush administration is coming from who if Cheney is outside the Administration in this matter? The implication is that it is Bush. As I said before, publicly opposing the DOJ brief would undermined that Department heads ability to do his job, set him up for being devoured by political rivals, and present a potential vacancy in that department that would have to go through another confirmation process to fill. Not to mention what sophistry would be created from it. Seems that the administration is using less overt means to address the matter.

We will see what, if any, amending gets done.

 

[RDak]

If Novak is correct, I can only conclude Bush is weak on the 2nd Amendment or it holds little importance to him.

If it was me, I would IMMEDIATELY make known my disagreement with my SG's position on such an important, widespread issue.

 

[GoSlash27]

Bruxley,
I'm not certain I'll have the time after this post for any follow-ups until tomorrow.

My statement of fact that the Federal government will be pleading it's case:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-16-gun-numbers_N.htm

The typical case runs for 60 minutes, 30 minutes for each side. For this dispute, the court allotted an additional 15 minutes to U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, whose argument on behalf of the Bush administration falls between the two sides. The administration supports finding an individual right to gun ownership but wants to ensure that all federal gun regulation is upheld.

You are indeed correct that this case is between Heller and the District of Columbia. Maybe you should inform Clement of that fact. Or for that matter, the Supreme Court Justices themselves.

My citation of Bush's public statements:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12579

The court's decision could be read to hold that the Second Amendment categorically precludes any ban on a category of 'Arms' that can be traced back to the Founding era. If adopted by this Court, such an analysis could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, including machineguns."

My citation of Obama's public statement:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UQTAS80&show_article=1

"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks. *snip* "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution," Obama said.

The conclusion that one of these statements is "to the left" of the other is purely subjective.

HTHs,
-Slashy

P.S. As an aside, you might want to consider exactly what point you're arguing and why. We all knew that Cheney signed that AC in his role as President of the Senate. I suspect most of us also knew about the highly unusual structure of this hearing.

 

[Bruxley]

Well GoSlash. You re-argued a conceded point that Publius42 made. Well done.

The debate is was holding with you was to a point that you had yet to justify your assertions that:

No, you've read it right. At this point our president is to the left of Obama on this matter.

And:

Perhaps you've missed Bush's repeated pleas for a ruling that "establishes an individual right but protects all Federal regulations"?
That's well to the left of what Obama's been saying. Plus we've got an additional 15 minutes of argument strictly on behalf of the Federal government that's going to support that viewpoint (Lord only knows how they plan on arguing it).

Yet to see the Bush quotes or the Obama quotes that put Bush LEFT of Obama.

Is this a concession of the assertion?

The conclusion that one of these statements is "to the left" of the other is purely subjective.

I guess concessions are only made when integrity is wished to be preserved. Otherwise after the fact editing and changing the parameters is the tact.

Repeated pleas that "establishes an individual right but protects all Federal regulations" and "That's well to the left of what Obama's been saying." Are no longer your assertions, NOW it subjective and requires quite a bit of stretch.

Way to go trying to ride the value of Publius42's point into some credibility for yourself. I understand the need but have yet to see a manifestation.

I see far too often people trying to 'fake' points to attack rather then make points to debate. FAR too often information is contorted to feed vitrihol and ultimatly becomes the means of controlling people. What is of more value, finding out something you weren't previously aware of or spinning something till it matches your preconceived ideas.

Bush is left of Obama on the RKBA isn't real. Spin the paint off of it and it's still not real.

 

[GoSlash27]

*Edit*
There is no logical response to bloviation.

 

[publius42]

anyhoo, this was all discussed to death back in February here and here.