[noodles]

Originally Posted by dcunning30

In making that statement, you are saying there are circumstances where a private citizen has no constitutional right to redress their greivances about a private, not policy matter in a court of law.

I think their is a slight difference between a civil lawsuit and a Congressional investigation, don't you? Congress was not designed to get involved in civil matters.

[dcunning30]

Originally Posted by noodles

No, you're ignoring the point I was making: Congress should not have been persuing the private life of a private citizen. Period. That is overstepping their bounds, the Constitution does not give them that power. The reason I say that I don't care that he committed the crim of lying under oath is because he should have never been under oath in the first place! The hearing should have never taken place. How hard is this for you to understand?

There lies the question for constitutional scholars. Does the commital of fealony offense by the president have any influence on his public office? Many people would say no, it should not. However, there are morality clauses for news casters and atheletes. Perhaps athelets and news casters should be held to a higher standard than the President of the United States. Based on what I'm reading, this is what many of you appear to be advocating.

[noodles]

Originally Posted by dcunning30

There lies the question for constitutional scholars. Does the commital of fealony offense by the president have any influence on his public office? Many people would say no, it should not. However, there are morality clauses for news casters and atheletes. Perhaps athelets and news casters should be held to a higher standard than the President of the United States. Based on what I'm reading, this is what many of you appear to be advocating.

News casters and athletes? What are you talking about?

[dcunning30]

Originally Posted by noodles

I think their is a slight difference between a civil lawsuit and a Congressional investigation, don't you? Congress was not designed to get involved in civil matters.

That's a valid point. But there lies the debate on what is a high crime and misdomenor. It was argued perjury by a president rises to that level.

Originally Posted by noodles

News casters and athletes? What are you talking about?

I made the point about morality clauses being important in those job descriptions. It seems it is being argued that there should be no morality consideration regarding perjury by a president. So I put the two together, if atheletes have to sign a morality clause for their jobs, and a president should not fall under scrutiny about perjuring himself. Then it is logical that in this regard, the athelete should be held to a higher standard than the president.

I enjoyed the debate, but I gotta run. L8r

[noodles]

* Noodles' head explodes.

Sorry, I'm stopping now. If you can't recognize that the entire affair was a gross waste of tax payer money, and a ridiculous waste of Congresisonal time that went far beyond these retarded baseball steroid investigations, then I will never be able to convince you.

There is nothing in the Constitution regarding morality. We shouldn't be legislating morality.

[TheMissing]

Originally Posted by dcunning30

In making that statement, you are saying there are circumstances where a private citizen has no constitutional right to redress their greivances about a private, not policy matter in a court of law.

Sorry, I didn't get to finish my post, had to his the 'Ninja Button' because a regional boss stopped in un-announced.

What i'm saying is, it was a lawsuit over infidelity brought on by the mistress. I don't see that as a matter of legality.

[Drew]

Originally Posted by dcunning30

This whole matter is EXACTLY that of executive privilages. The executive branch was involved in it's operations regarding the firings.

Ok, I'll make the obvious point that I can't believe no one has made.

The executive branch was involved in its operations regarding the firings in the judicial branch, which itself is supposed to be free to pursue its actions without interference of the executive branch.

So, the executive branch gets to screw with the operations of the judicial branch by removing justices due to reasons surrounding not their competence but their personal politics, but when the congressional branch, charged with oversight of the executive branch, cries foul, then they can plead executive privelage?

Please. Explain how that works to me.

[Drew]

Kind of sorry to see this one end.

[noodles]

Well, when you drop the debate nuke, no one is left standing to argue with you.

[JBroll]

It's been almost a decade. Could we please shut the fuck up about Clinton getting a blow job? Lots of fucking blow jobs have happened since then. The whole thing was just a publicity stunt that the GOP threw a shitfit over so that people wouldn't worry about IMPORTANT shit that was going on, does it really feel that fucking good to give them the satisfaction of knowing that it's STILL working? There's NO reason to keep beating this dead horse - and the only 'executive privilege' Bush should be worrying about is the privilege of getting to keep his head on his shoulders when we finally move the fuck on to another clueless, incompetent asshole.

As for the original topic... it's been how long and these twats have gotten how much done apart from bitching across the aisles? Two years... we're still in Iraq, idiots in the White House are still fucking with everything from the economy to releasing information that shouldn't have been secret in the first place, but let's all cream ourselves over the thought of someone maybe starting to possibly investigate some things that may have been bad somewhere in the past with some people who might have done some stuff? Wankers...

Jeff