OBAMA V CHENEY -- THE GREAT CONSTITUTIONAL & MORAL DEBATE

Just a subsequent note about EX POST FACTO [retroactive] sanctions.

This law has not allways been consistent. Originally, BOTH civil and criminal law was held to be valid PROSPECTIVELY [for future matters] ONLY.

If I recall correctly, about the middle of the 20th century, that was changed by the SUPREMES, who then held that either retroactice or EX POST FACTO laws [legislation] would be valid for CIVIL but NOT CRIMINAL matters.

Thus those seeking the retroactive criminalization of actions that were protected by both Article 2 of the US Constitution and the Joint Resolution of Congress, that was passxed after 9-11-2001 will not be successful absent a Constitutional Amendment to that effect and even were such an Amendment proposed, passed and then ratified by the states [itself often a term of art], the Supremes could still strike down the Amendmednt.

A further subsequent note about any alleged efforts to 'extradite' alleged offenders to the International Court of Justice in the Hague.

The 'arguable' ABSURDITY of the suggestion aside, it is important to note that there is really no such thing as CUSTOMARY 'international law' any more than there exist a 'real' FEDERAL 'common law.'

Customary international law is arguably the commercial and trading laws frequently applied by European Christian nations over the last several hundred years. It does NOT include laws germaine to Islam, Hindu, Buddhist or even Russian [communist] origin, let alone any number of other traditions.

Federal 'common law' is a misnomer, per se, inasmuch as it encompasses 'judge made rules' used in the Federal Judicial System that are designed to 'plug a gap' in the laws of that Circuit, whereas 'Common Law,' as that term is typically used constitute the law in effect in England when the US Colonies broke away from the Crown. The colonies and even later states were able to 'adopt' the entire body of laws in force in England, by way of either Stature, or content of the State Constitution.

a-man already LOL

Bruce, I sure am glad you brought up Neville Chamberlain, who is a shining example of the Left's approach to dealing with brutal dictators and threats to world peace. It all seems to boil down to the simple minded: "If we were only NICE to the terrorists, then they would be nice to us too!" Does that sound silly? It does. Worse is when it becomes the cornerstone of American foreign policy.

It seems impossible for people of that mindset to imagine that deliberate weakness encourages those that threaten us to be even more daring and aggressive, not less. Clinton's "Chamberlain" approach to the terrorist threat gave us numerous terrorist attacks world wide and TWO attacks on the World Trade Center. Not learning anything from the first attack on the WTC and other incidents, and apparently determined to follow the Chamberlain approach to "world peace," that administration established the "Gorelick Wall" between the FBI and CIA.

What could that administration be thinking in the 1990's when it forbid the FBI and the CIA from sharing intelligence data? What rational mind would ever impliment such a thing?? I guess when you get that thousand yard stare like a deer in the headlights and start talking about your dream of "world peace," rational thinking is a distant second. (Then again, saying it while your pants are at your ankles doesn't help much either!) So even though, by some accounts, Clinton was "loved" by "the world" terrorists kept ratcheting up their attacks. Didn't they know Clinton was being nice to them by weakening the USA and gutting our standing military? Using Chamberlain's reasoning, Clinton should have had us well on the way to world peace by the end of his term. (For his supporters, skip knowing all of that and "Blame Bush!" Simple, easy, done! )

See if any of Neville's words sound like the mush brains of today.

"It has always seemed to me that, in dealing with foreign countries, we do not give ourselves a chance of success unless we try to understand their mentality, which is not always the same as our own, and it really is astonishing to contemplate how the identically same facts are regarded from two different angles." Neville Chamberlain

"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators." Neville Chamberlain

"One story is based on fear. It says there are all these terrible people out there out to get us . . . and we have to batten down the hatches and stop change coming. There's another story to tell that says we have very real threats but the only way to solve them is . . . reaching out to people, encouraging greater understanding." Barak Obama

And of course, the FAMOUS quote that should have ended lunatic thinking like Chamberlain's for all eternity:

"This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine.... We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again."

Chamberlain's Speech at Heston Airport, September 30, 1938

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZHpprf6HSM

In essence, Chamberlain was cajoled into being weak and relaxing Britain's guard against an obviously growing military threat.

Gee, I wonder if any modern leader is headed in that direction today, GUIDED BY THE EXACT SAME REASONING? Lemme see...... hmmm, can you guess who that might be? *** cue the theme song from Final Jeopardy***

A child is taught that the stove is hot and that if the child touches it, it will burn them. The child eventually touches the stove and gets burned THEN learning and believing that if you touch the stove you will get burned.

Rational adults shouldn't have to "touch the stove" to figure out that you will get burned. We have plenty of history to show us what works and what does not work, and why. In Chamberlain's day we "tried peace anyway" without rational thinking and wound up with the incredible carnage of World War 2.

Do we really need ANOTHER grand experiment to prove this is absolutely a disasterous way to go? Didn't we already "touch the stove and get burned?" Sure we did, but THIS time it will be different? How?

Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I guess January 20, 2013, the next presidential inauguration day, just can't come soon enough before we all suffer at the hands of the "Neville Chamberlain of today."

Chris Parks - ABR, e-Pro, GRI - Accelerated

Broker

CParksGo@Gmail.com

RE: Obama v Chaney

Who is monitoring this BLOG? This rant has not place in this Real Estate Blog. Please stop this kind of abuse of a forum not intended for Political discussion.

LET"S LIMIT THE USE OF THIS BLOG TO REAL ESTATE ISSUES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!

Why is this crap being allowed to be posted in Real Town? If I want to read rants, I'll read Rush Limbaugh (the drug addict and abuser) blog. What's a "J.D," you might ask? That's someone who graduated from law school but couldn't pass the bar exam.

Brian, keep your infantile bigoted analysis of history to yourself, please; this audience is interested in improving their ability to sell real estate.

TO RICH HUDSON: Once you find out about this, I'm sure you'll eliminate it, but this guy should be couseled on the real purpose of Real Town: Peace, harmony and good real estate information.

RE: Obama v Chaney

Who is monitoring this BLOG? This rant has not place in this Real Estate Blog. Please stop this kind of abuse of a forum not intended for Political discussion.

LET"S LIMIT THE USE OF THIS BLOG TO REAL ESTATE ISSUES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!

Read more: http://www.realtown.com/john/groups/real-estate-experts/view/13268#post13268#ixzz0GMWky5Fz&B

Frankly Bruce, I don't think this is the correct forum for political rhetoric. However, there is at least one other opinion out here.

For the second time in the last three presidential elections people with your views were in the minority. Fortunately, in the last election, the party that won the popular vote actually got into office.

So, most of us no longer want to hear about, or put up with, the Bush/ Chaney party line. Thank God that is over. Didn't they already kill enough of our kids?

Most of us thought Wag The Dog was a funny movie. George and company made it administration strategy. The result, Iraq, far too many dead American kids and economic meltdown. If we don't keep borrowing from our children to feed Halliberton's coffers Chaney will have a smaller golden parachute. And you don't want to make him mad, he even shoots his friends!

George II said it all on May 21, 1999..."There ought to be limits to freedom." Agree with him and you can have your freedom. Disagree and we will water-board you butt!

Here's what YOU voted for. He finally did it. No money, no more credit. Car companies and banks in disarray.

Forget about your "Bush" hatred.

Obama is a "national Katrina."

Chaos on the scale he has created IS "real estate oriented"

Will he print ANOTHER trillion now?

'WE'RE OUT OF MONEY'
Sat May 23 2009

http://drudgereport.com/flashocs.htm

In a sobering holiday interview with C-SPAN, President Obama boldly told Americans: "We are out of money."

C-SPAN host Steve Scully broke from a meek Washington press corps with probing questions for the new president.

SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?

OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades.

So we've got a short-term problem, which is we had to spend a lot of money to salvage our financial system, we had to deal with the auto companies, a huge recession which drains tax revenue at the same time it's putting more pressure on governments to provide unemployment insurance or make sure that food stamps are available for people who have been laid off.

So we have a short-term problem and we also have a long-term problem. The short-term problem is dwarfed by the long-term problem. And the long-term problem is Medicaid and Medicare. If we don't reduce long-term health care inflation substantially, we can't get control of the deficit.

So, one option is just to do nothing. We say, well, it's too expensive for us to make some short-term investments in health care. We can't afford it. We've got this big deficit. Let's just keep the health care system that we've got now.

Along that trajectory, we will see health care cost as an overall share of our federal spending grow and grow and grow and grow until essentially it consumes everything...

SCULLY: When you see GM though as "Government Motors," you're reaction?

OBAMA: Well, you know - look we are trying to help an auto industry that is going through a combination of bad decision making over many years and an unprecedented crisis or at least a crisis we haven't seen since the 1930's. And you know the economy is going to bounce back and we want to get out of the business of helping auto companies as quickly as we can. I have got more enough to do without that. In the same way that I want to get out of the business of helping banks, but we have to make some strategic decisions about strategic industries...

SCULLY: States like California in desperate financial situation, will you be forced to bail out the states?

OBAMA: No. I think that what you're seeing in states is that anytime you got a severe recession like this, as I said before, their demands on services are higher. So, they are sending more money out. At the same time, they're bringing less tax revenue in. And that's a painful adjustment, what we're going end up seeing is lot of states making very difficult choices there...

SCULLY: William Howard Taft served on the court after his presidency, would you have any interest in being on the Supreme Court?

OBAMA: You know, I am not sure that I could get through Senate confirmation...

Developing...

IS 'EXPERT' POLITICAL COMMENTARY APPROPRIATE ON THIS BLOG FOR REAL ESTATE EXPERTS ???????????????

MY GOD, I CERTAINLY HOPE SO --- NO ONE IS FORCED TO READ IT.

---------------------------------------------

EVERY YEAR, WHEN I RENEW MY BOARD DUES, I AM ASKED TO MAKE A POLITICAL DONATION TO REPAC, SO REPAC CAN ADVOCATE FOR LEGISLATION THAT FURTHERS THE FINANCIAL INTEREST OF REALTORS.

THAT IS 100% POLITICAL, IS IT NOT ???

---------------------------------------------

If we only had a group like Real Town, where the pros & cons of ARMS, NODOCS, MORTGAGE---STOCK DERIVITES, etc. could have been discussed and CHALLENGED or ADVANCED, it might have made a difference.

BUT AS REALTORS, WE CHOSE TO BURY OUR HEADS IN THE SAND INSTEAD -- WHY? BECAUSE IT ++++ FINANCIALLY ++++ BENEFITED US TO DO SO --- DIDN'T IT !!!!!

Over the last several days in The Washington Post [a very liberal newspaper] any number of articles have appeared, not just Charles Krauthammer's, with titles like ------- OBAMA IN BUSH CLOTHING, etc.

As for the term, J.D., in law school it was joked that it ment 'Jewish Doctor,' a term that long outlast any law school years, which is in no way derrogatory of Jews. Apparently it originates with the term Juris Doctor [obviously] and is a pun on MDs., not on Jews, since both Jews & non-Jews use the term in jest quite frequently.

The two individuals that I am familiar with on this site who use the term J.D. after their names have both been practicing lawyers, [I am one of them] BUT today many Bar Associations only allow those who have paid CURRENT Bar dues to use the terms 'Esq,' Lawyer, Attorney, or Attorney-at-Law, or even Counselor in combination with any previous term. Thus anyone inactive for whatever reason may not use the term 'Esq.,' which is why one sees with increasing frequency the designation of J.D.

-----------------------------------------------------

Now personally, I like Obama. But just as all pilots didn't train in fighter aircraft and beyond that, then see actual combat, merely being a US Senator doesn't make one an expert in terrorism and as OBAMA is HOPEFULLY QUICKLY LEARNING from his numerous advisors, WE AREN'T IN KANSAS ANYMORE ----- EVEN IF THOSE VOTING FOR HIM THOUGHT WE WERE.

------------------------------------------------------

THE FINANCIAL WELL BEING OF THE UNITES STATES OF AMERICA IS VERY MUCH THE BUSINESS OF REALTORS AND THEREFORE PROPERLY THE SUBJECT OF EXPERT DISCUSSION IN THIS BLOG, EVEN IF DISCUSSIONS ARE COLLATERAL TO FINANCE.