Treason And Congress Letter To Iran - No One Undermines The US Like The Republicans
Forum » Everything Else »
Politics and Religion
»
Treason and Congress letter to Iran - No one undermines the US like the Republicans
Treason and Congress letter to Iran - No one undermines the US like the Republicans
The job to interpret the Constitution is left up to the Supreme Court, which is currently majority conservatives. Other than a Constitutional amendment, there is no further discussion once they've had their say. There is no debate, there is no goal post, there is no false equivalence you're trying to set up.
State why the Federal Reserve should be dissolved or abolished.
And then take into account everything the FRS is responsible for, and keep in mind everyone who suffers from it's removal.
A better idea would be to reform the FRS practices so that positive changes can be made at a relative pace, rather than all at once, and can be implemented piece by piece to affect as little people as possible.
(BTW FRS is an abbrev. for Federal Reserve System, and was introduced as an effective means to curb multiple financial crises which used to happen every decade for 70 years prior to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913)
Edit: But everything I posted would be considered "the disease of progressivism" by Zackan, because you can't have a conservative idea being progressive, since it changes something, or builds on it innovatively.
The abolishment of the FRS is MASSIVE change btw, which is a PROGRESSIVE idea as it means to change something moving forward. Kind of ironic, isn't it?
And then take into account everything the FRS is responsible for, and keep in mind everyone who suffers from it's removal.
A better idea would be to reform the FRS practices so that positive changes can be made at a relative pace, rather than all at once, and can be implemented piece by piece to affect as little people as possible.
(BTW FRS is an abbrev. for Federal Reserve System, and was introduced as an effective means to curb multiple financial crises which used to happen every decade for 70 years prior to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913)
Edit: But everything I posted would be considered "the disease of progressivism" by Zackan, because you can't have a conservative idea being progressive, since it changes something, or builds on it innovatively.
The abolishment of the FRS is MASSIVE change btw, which is a PROGRESSIVE idea as it means to change something moving forward. Kind of ironic, isn't it?
[+]
Can we keep lordgrim's *** contained in one thread?
[+]
Bloodrose said: »
State why the Federal Reserve should be dissolved or abolished.
And then take into account everything the FRS is responsible for, and keep in mind everyone who suffers from it's removal.
A better idea would be to reform the FRS practices so that positive changes can be made at a relative pace, rather than all at once, and can be implemented piece by piece to affect as little people as possible.
(BTW FRS is an abbrev. for Federal Reserve System, and was introduced as an effective means to curb multiple financial crises which used to happen every decade for 70 years prior to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913)
Edit: But everything I posted would be considered "the disease of progressivism" by Zackan, because you can't have a conservative idea being progressive, since it changes something, or builds on it innovatively.
The abolishment of the FRS is MASSIVE change btw, which is a PROGRESSIVE idea as it means to change something moving forward. Kind of ironic, isn't it?
And then take into account everything the FRS is responsible for, and keep in mind everyone who suffers from it's removal.
A better idea would be to reform the FRS practices so that positive changes can be made at a relative pace, rather than all at once, and can be implemented piece by piece to affect as little people as possible.
(BTW FRS is an abbrev. for Federal Reserve System, and was introduced as an effective means to curb multiple financial crises which used to happen every decade for 70 years prior to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913)
Edit: But everything I posted would be considered "the disease of progressivism" by Zackan, because you can't have a conservative idea being progressive, since it changes something, or builds on it innovatively.
The abolishment of the FRS is MASSIVE change btw, which is a PROGRESSIVE idea as it means to change something moving forward. Kind of ironic, isn't it?
the abolishment of the FRS is not progressive, but I will accept Radical. The reason why it is not progressive is because it is a step BACKWARDS since the FRS has not always existed. I will accept there is a lot about the FRS I do not know, but I do know the FRS is controlled(at a minimum partially) privately.
I stand by it needs to be resolved, but I will accept that this is probably the hardest thing to do. There needs to be a counter offer, and I do not know enough about economics to even pretend to offer an alternative. I just know that our monies should be controlled directly by the Federal Government, that is one of its actual responsibilities, to balance trade among the states, and having a steady currency helps with that.
Zackan said: »
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
I don't think a guy who's ok with amending the Constitution but hates changes made to the constitution can go that much in depth.
Such an inappropriate statement.
If you can get a 3/4 vote to ratify the constitution then i would fully support the change. The changes I speak of progressives making is in translation of the constitution. Attempt to move the bar, once the new position is settled then move it again.
I am a constitutional conservative with a dash of libertarian. I believe we have gotten out of control with spending and goverment programs and entities. I would support an abolishment of the IRS and the DOE. I believe that when it comes to Immigration, I don't have a problem with Amnesty actually, what I have a problem with is putting cart before the horse. We need to adress tightening our borders FIRST then we can DISCUSS how to deal with immigrants living here.
I believe in seperate but equal (yah yah, i can feel that statement being targeted already) definitions of Marriage. I believe that spirituality should not be as taboo as it is these days. I believe that all presidents are hated, especially while they are still in office. I believe that presidents get blamed for the results of the prior president coming into fruition.
I believe that the senate should be elected by the states(like it use to be) I believe the Federal Reserve needs to be dissolved. I believe we need to add more amendments to the constitution(balanced budget, 12 year limit for congress)
Some of your ideas I agree with, but you're still on the hook to give some example of how progressives are moving goalposts or translating the constitution.
And yeah, your statements about marriage and spirituality are pretty weaksauce. Marriage is a legal contract, feel free to have a religious union between a man and a woman, that's just one flavor of marriage. Also, spirituality is in fad status in the US, politicians can't even get elected without claiming to be Christians, even if they're not. What do you mean by spirituality being taboo?
Zackan said: »
Bloodrose said: »
State why the Federal Reserve should be dissolved or abolished.
And then take into account everything the FRS is responsible for, and keep in mind everyone who suffers from it's removal.
A better idea would be to reform the FRS practices so that positive changes can be made at a relative pace, rather than all at once, and can be implemented piece by piece to affect as little people as possible.
(BTW FRS is an abbrev. for Federal Reserve System, and was introduced as an effective means to curb multiple financial crises which used to happen every decade for 70 years prior to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913)
Edit: But everything I posted would be considered "the disease of progressivism" by Zackan, because you can't have a conservative idea being progressive, since it changes something, or builds on it innovatively.
The abolishment of the FRS is MASSIVE change btw, which is a PROGRESSIVE idea as it means to change something moving forward. Kind of ironic, isn't it?
And then take into account everything the FRS is responsible for, and keep in mind everyone who suffers from it's removal.
A better idea would be to reform the FRS practices so that positive changes can be made at a relative pace, rather than all at once, and can be implemented piece by piece to affect as little people as possible.
(BTW FRS is an abbrev. for Federal Reserve System, and was introduced as an effective means to curb multiple financial crises which used to happen every decade for 70 years prior to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913)
Edit: But everything I posted would be considered "the disease of progressivism" by Zackan, because you can't have a conservative idea being progressive, since it changes something, or builds on it innovatively.
The abolishment of the FRS is MASSIVE change btw, which is a PROGRESSIVE idea as it means to change something moving forward. Kind of ironic, isn't it?
the abolishment of the FRS is not progressive, but I will accept Radical. The reason why it is not progressive is because it is a step BACKWARDS since the FRS has not always existed. I will accept there is a lot about the FRS I do not know, but I do know the FRS is controlled(at a minimum partially) privately.
I stand by it needs to be resolved, but I will accept that this is probably the hardest thing to do. There needs to be a counter offer, and I do not know enough about economics to even pretend to offer an alternative. I just know that our monies should be controlled directly by the Federal Government, that is one of its actual responsibilities, to balance trade among the states, and having a steady currency helps with that.
You have failed to provide any reason as to *why* it needs to be dissolved, nor is it *regressive* if the intent is to change something moving forward, since the idea of dissolving the FRS is to move forward without it, unless of course you are suggesting the US revert back to an era of unstable financial crises. That's where the progressivism lies.
The FRS is not "owned" by private businesses or sectors by any means. The FRS is jointly controlled by private member banks, the federal government, and reports directly to congress, while setting *monetary policy* The FRS reports directly to Congress, and if that what you mentioned, is already an active part of what the FRS does - it keeps the fiat currency of the United States balanced among all states, as a federally declared currency. Meaning that 1 US Dollar is not any different in value in Texas, than in Missouri.
Then again, so far every single person on this site who's been against the FRS and for it's abolishment, has no clue what it actually does, or everything it actually encompasses. They believe it does something that it has no control over.
However, I will grant you were the first person to admit it.
[+]
Edit: wasn't finished. Carry on.
Don't take TYT seriously. Their own views are biased heavily to the left. They're not a credible news source for that fact alone. Just like Fox News isn't really credible when they lean so far to the right.
as for the law:
It’s from 1799 law that made it a crime for:
“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
Did they do these things? Oh yes they did.
This hits kind of a shady area when it comes to treason. Having members of the U.S. Congress sending these letters as a form of political correspondence or even meeting with foreign diplomats is not unheard of; it's part of their job. Legally, the jurisdiction for permission for this falls under the Executive branch. I'm 100% certain Obama did not give permission in this matter.
So really, it's up to DoJ to pursue this. I highly doubt anything will come of it.
Don't take TYT seriously. Their own views are biased heavily to the left. They're not a credible news source for that fact alone. Just like Fox News isn't really credible when they lean so far to the right.
as for the law:
It’s from 1799 law that made it a crime for:
“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
Did they do these things? Oh yes they did.
This hits kind of a shady area when it comes to treason. Having members of the U.S. Congress sending these letters as a form of political correspondence or even meeting with foreign diplomats is not unheard of; it's part of their job. Legally, the jurisdiction for permission for this falls under the Executive branch. I'm 100% certain Obama did not give permission in this matter.
So really, it's up to DoJ to pursue this. I highly doubt anything will come of it.
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
I don't think a guy who's ok with amending the Constitution but hates changes made to the constitution can go that much in depth.
This clown is a special breed. Let him continue. It's comical to think there really are people who fervently believe this nonesense.
You'd like to ammend the constitution!?'v. You must be a "progressive!" May you develop cancer and die in poverty!
It's Nausi with a side of Lordgrim.
Bloodrose said: »
You can't contain *** of that magnitude!
Speaking of *** looks at last 14 pages...
I am probably late to this discussion.
It ain't treason but it's illegal.
Did 47 Republican senators break the law in plain sight?
Not that the Logan Act has ever been successfully prosecuted.
Now where did I stash that popcorn?
It ain't treason but it's illegal.
Did 47 Republican senators break the law in plain sight?
Not that the Logan Act has ever been successfully prosecuted.
Now where did I stash that popcorn?
[+]
I suggest you not backread and waste valuable seconds !
Lye said: »
Bismarck.Ihina said: »
I don't think a guy who's ok with amending the Constitution but hates changes made to the constitution can go that much in depth.
This clown is a special breed. Let him continue. It's comical to think there really are people who fervently believe this nonesense.
You'd like to ammend the constitution!?'v. You must be a "progressive!" May you develop cancer and die in poverty!
It's Nausi with a side of Lordgrim.
I don't trust a word you say anymore Lye,
Bloodrose said: »
Zackan said: »
Bloodrose said: »
State why the Federal Reserve should be dissolved or abolished.
And then take into account everything the FRS is responsible for, and keep in mind everyone who suffers from it's removal.
A better idea would be to reform the FRS practices so that positive changes can be made at a relative pace, rather than all at once, and can be implemented piece by piece to affect as little people as possible.
(BTW FRS is an abbrev. for Federal Reserve System, and was introduced as an effective means to curb multiple financial crises which used to happen every decade for 70 years prior to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913)
Edit: But everything I posted would be considered "the disease of progressivism" by Zackan, because you can't have a conservative idea being progressive, since it changes something, or builds on it innovatively.
The abolishment of the FRS is MASSIVE change btw, which is a PROGRESSIVE idea as it means to change something moving forward. Kind of ironic, isn't it?
And then take into account everything the FRS is responsible for, and keep in mind everyone who suffers from it's removal.
A better idea would be to reform the FRS practices so that positive changes can be made at a relative pace, rather than all at once, and can be implemented piece by piece to affect as little people as possible.
(BTW FRS is an abbrev. for Federal Reserve System, and was introduced as an effective means to curb multiple financial crises which used to happen every decade for 70 years prior to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913)
Edit: But everything I posted would be considered "the disease of progressivism" by Zackan, because you can't have a conservative idea being progressive, since it changes something, or builds on it innovatively.
The abolishment of the FRS is MASSIVE change btw, which is a PROGRESSIVE idea as it means to change something moving forward. Kind of ironic, isn't it?
the abolishment of the FRS is not progressive, but I will accept Radical. The reason why it is not progressive is because it is a step BACKWARDS since the FRS has not always existed. I will accept there is a lot about the FRS I do not know, but I do know the FRS is controlled(at a minimum partially) privately.
I stand by it needs to be resolved, but I will accept that this is probably the hardest thing to do. There needs to be a counter offer, and I do not know enough about economics to even pretend to offer an alternative. I just know that our monies should be controlled directly by the Federal Government, that is one of its actual responsibilities, to balance trade among the states, and having a steady currency helps with that.
You have failed to provide any reason as to *why* it needs to be dissolved, nor is it *regressive* if the intent is to change something moving forward, since the idea of dissolving the FRS is to move forward without it, unless of course you are suggesting the US revert back to an era of unstable financial crises. That's where the progressivism lies.
The FRS is not "owned" by private businesses or sectors by any means. The FRS is jointly controlled by private member banks, the federal government, and reports directly to congress, while setting *monetary policy* The FRS reports directly to Congress, and if that what you mentioned, is already an active part of what the FRS does - it keeps the fiat currency of the United States balanced among all states, as a federally declared currency. Meaning that 1 US Dollar is not any different in value in Texas, than in Missouri.
Then again, so far every single person on this site who's been against the FRS and for it's abolishment, has no clue what it actually does, or everything it actually encompasses. They believe it does something that it has no control over.
However, I will grant you were the first person to admit it.
Bloodrose on the other hand I appreciate the back and forth, I need to get to sleep I will reply in more detail tomorrow, I just felt like letting you know I am listening to you.
I have certain things I am hardline about but actually on most things I am completely willing to budge. Education into topics I realize I actually don't know much about is a very good thing.
What's happening here? I'm apparently not smart enough to make sense of the 14 pages I skimmed over. Summary preez D:
[+]
I completely agree with you Bloodrose, I just want to expand on two of your well articulated points.
It would do more than revert the US back to an era of unstable financial crisis, it would destroy the foundations of interstate and international commerce.
The majority of businesses (I'm talking about 90%+ of all businesses) would automatically default on their loans because, since removing the Federal Reserve is considered an event where it makes all loans automatically payable, those businesses do not have the cash or other liquid assets on hand to pay the loan in full.
The only type of businesses who would have that cash on hand would be the very large multinational businesses. Does anyone really want a global monopoly in every industry?
And that's just one of 3 jobs that the Federal Reserve system does. The other two are control of the money supply, especially in international affairs, and loans to the member banks, which is what keeps bank lending money to people who need it.
Tell us, what did they negotiate? Every single person who accuses the Republicans of treason have yet to answer this question, which is the key point in the Logan's Act.
An open letter outlining US policy isn't an act of negotiations.
Bloodrose said: »
You have failed to provide any reason as to *why* it needs to be dissolved, nor is it *regressive* if the intent is to change something moving forward, since the idea of dissolving the FRS is to move forward without it, unless of course you are suggesting the US revert back to an era of unstable financial crises. That's where the progressivism lies.
The majority of businesses (I'm talking about 90%+ of all businesses) would automatically default on their loans because, since removing the Federal Reserve is considered an event where it makes all loans automatically payable, those businesses do not have the cash or other liquid assets on hand to pay the loan in full.
The only type of businesses who would have that cash on hand would be the very large multinational businesses. Does anyone really want a global monopoly in every industry?
Bloodrose said: »
The FRS is not "owned" by private businesses or sectors by any means. The FRS is jointly controlled by private member banks, the federal government, and reports directly to congress, while setting *monetary policy* The FRS reports directly to Congress, and if that what you mentioned, is already an active part of what the FRS does - it keeps the fiat currency of the United States balanced among all states, as a federally declared currency. Meaning that 1 US Dollar is not any different in value in Texas, than in Missouri.
And that's just one of 3 jobs that the Federal Reserve system does. The other two are control of the money supply, especially in international affairs, and loans to the member banks, which is what keeps bank lending money to people who need it.
Asura.Aldrai said: »
Did they do these things? Oh yes they did.
An open letter outlining US policy isn't an act of negotiations.
So, is Obama now considered "United States"?
The only way you can make an argument that this was a direct violation of the Logan Act is if you change it to "without authority of the executive branch of the United States government"
Too bad it doesn't say that. It never gave direct powers to the executive branch only, and since executive = legislative = judicial branches, and those 3 makes up the US government, what the Republicans did didn't break the law.
Still a *** move, but not illegal.
Now, if you were to try to negotiate with Iran, then Logan's Act would be violated.
But I guess since Fast/Furious, Benghazi, IRS, AP wiretapping, Solyndra, and all of the other incidences regarding the Obama administration are all "faux scandals," then this should be one too, since it falls under the liberal definition of "faux scandals," unless the real definition is "when a liberal/democrat does it, it's ok, but when a Republican does it, it's treason!"
The only way you can make an argument that this was a direct violation of the Logan Act is if you change it to "without authority of the executive branch of the United States government"
Too bad it doesn't say that. It never gave direct powers to the executive branch only, and since executive = legislative = judicial branches, and those 3 makes up the US government, what the Republicans did didn't break the law.
Still a *** move, but not illegal.
Now, if you were to try to negotiate with Iran, then Logan's Act would be violated.
But I guess since Fast/Furious, Benghazi, IRS, AP wiretapping, Solyndra, and all of the other incidences regarding the Obama administration are all "faux scandals," then this should be one too, since it falls under the liberal definition of "faux scandals," unless the real definition is "when a liberal/democrat does it, it's ok, but when a Republican does it, it's treason!"
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
So, is Obama now considered "United States"?
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
The only way you can make an argument that this was a direct violation of the Logan Act is if you change it to "without authority of the executive branch of the United States government"
I thought the seperation of powers were pretty clear there, the congress doesn't have the power to negotiate or influence executive agreements. They have the power to write legislations to restrain those agreements.
You "thought" it was. However, the act itself never stated exclusive powers to one branch of the government.
That's why "feels" aren't included in laws. They have to be spelled out.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
That's why "feels" aren't included in laws. They have to be spelled out.
Not speaking to this particular instance, but in general the application of law and policy as a whole, it can be determined that something violates (or, inversely, evokes) the spirit of a policy, if not the letter.
Frankly I think the whole situation is being overblown, the way everything else is these days. Just like the e-mail thing.
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
That's why "feels" aren't included in laws. They have to be spelled out.
Not speaking to this particular instance, but in general the application of law and policy as a whole, it can be determined that something violates (or, inversely, evokes) the spirit of a policy, if not the letter.
Frankly I think the whole situation is being overblown, the way everything else is these days. Just like the e-mail thing.
Man, this is still going? Keep dreaming liberals, keep dreaming.
Who needs facts when you've got "feels"?
Can 231,445 people who want this to be treason be wrong? YES!
Who needs facts when you've got "feels"?
Can 231,445 people who want this to be treason be wrong? YES!
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
The only way you can make an argument that this was a direct violation of the Logan Act is if you change it to "without authority of the executive branch of the United States government"
I thought the seperation of powers were pretty clear there, the congress doesn't have the power to negotiate or influence executive agreements. They have the power to write legislations to restrain those agreements.
You "thought" it was. However, the act itself never stated exclusive powers to one branch of the government.
That's why "feels" aren't included in laws. They have to be spelled out.
Quote:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States
Congress doesn't have authority on executive agreements, which is the point.
Quote:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
If you cannot use that attack, prove to the jury the intent of the law gives power only to the executive branch, and explain why the power was not given expressly in the law when it was written and all amendments thereof where all other laws do spell out the exclusive and explicit powers to specific branches and agencies of the government.
Laws based on feels? Aren't they already there?
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
The spirit and intent of the law has to be spelled out to a judge and/or jury, and there are so many laws out there that gives specific powers to a specific branch of government that it would be impossible to say that this one instance is a special event.
Eh. I'm just speaking in generalities as I said.
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
Laws based on feels? Aren't they already there?
Strictly speaking "no murder" is a law based on feels, right?
Really, aren't they all based on feels?
Isn't every man or woman or child for themselves the way of nature? These laws just get in the way of filtering out the poor genetic material.
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Does the law define Authority of the United States? No? Thank you.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.