You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #65: I don't think you understand what his exact "argument" was [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
ProgressiveAmPatriot Donating Member (350 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #54
65. I don't think you understand what his exact "argument" was
Edited on Fri Jun-22-07 04:33 AM by ProgressiveAmPatriot
His office is quoted as saying that because he is a member of the both executive and the legislative branches, he is therefore he was not required to reply. The quote from the letter is "...the OVB spokesperson indicated, 'This has been reviewed and it's been determined that the reporting requirement does not apply to The Office of the Vice President, which has both legislative and executive functions.'" So, in fairness to Cheney, he didn't say the law doesn't apply to him because he's not a member of the executive, he said it doesn't apply to him because he is both a member of the executive and a member of the legislature. The logic of this statement goes like this

(1) Records law applies to the executive branch
(2) The Office of the Vice-President is in both the executive and legislative branch
<1,2> (3) The records law does not apply to VP

It is this "polite" letter that takes this unbelievably faulty logic to its inevitable conclusion and brings us back to reality

(1) Records law applies to the executive branch
(2) Records law does not apply to the Vice-President according to Vice-President
<1,2> (3) The Vice-President is not a member of the executive branch

And I am sure Democrats on the hill will be able to take it even further

<3> (4) The Vice-President lacks executive privilege

The conclusion of any logical person of course is that the Vice-President is insane and should be impeached. But let's be fair: he acknowledges being a part of the executive branch, he just thinks that this law should not apply to him because he is also a member of the legislative branch. I really don't know how The White House or Republicans, or the press is going to spin this. Then again, they could spin it the same way they sold torture. Just repeat something over and over again, have no shame, and eventually people will come to believe the big lie. Torture is patriotic when done for the right reasons. Global warming is a myth. Science is inconclusive on the subject. Constitutional experts disagree as to whether the Vice-President is exempt from laws governing the executive as he is a member of the executive and the legislature.

I swear to God they are going to find a "constitutional expert" to say that the Constitution is ambiguous on whether laws governing the executive apply to the VP. And the press is going to quote both sides in a "fair and balanced way." This is the problem with American journalism which teaches that there are two equal sides to any story. Crazy people with no shame come along and they justify crazy things by making things up and repeating them over and over and over until people start to believe the big lie. And the "fair and balanced" press just continues quoting both sides in an equal manner. Signing statements Bush style are no longer unprecedented attacks on the Constitution according to CNN. Why? Because that is what the White House says and every story has two equal sides. Cheney doesn't think the law applies to him. Democrats SAY the Constitution says otherwise. They disagree. Fair and balanced requires that we present both sides equally, thus Cheney gets quoted on an equal footing with sane people who think the law applies to them.

They've done it. They have done what Nixon couldn't do. They announce their criminal behavior in advance and claim it is morally just and they get away with it. Or when they classify their crimes and they get caught, they say after the fact that it was morally just and they get away with it. Then the press reports "the Democratic position," they broke the law, and the White House position, we are morally righteous in what we do so shut up and write our side of the story or we'll out your CIA wife. That of course isn't criminal. See, this is where Nixon screwed up. He acknowledged that if he had done what he was accused of doing, that it was wrong. Nixon's problem was he said he didn't do it. He should of just said, yeah I did it and it was legal, and it was good for democracy and he could have had 8 years like Bush. Unbelievable. I am a member of the executive and legislative so the laws governing the executive do not apply to me.

Alright, I'm done ranting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC