Close Please enter your Username and Password


jiminycricket1 73M
5404 posts
11/17/2019 6:58 am
Barr/Federalist Society


From a Liberal point of view.. We constantly bicker over the premise that The trump supporters has no basis for their Trump support.. they can't make a legitimate argument for their position..That would condone the rampant corruption of the Trump administration.

Barr gave a speech the the Federalist society...that has a possibility of explaining, legitimate support for this president.

The speech is portrayed politically and defining a Liberal "witch hunt".. but that too.. is bias news....as It wasn't..

Agreement or disagreement that chooses political sides..is the issue.
And so the gap widens... of our only ONE sided Constitution..

My only example of this would be the Anthony Scalia argument..The strict Constitutionalist versus a living breathing document.
Agreement or disagreement MUST be mitigated with our agreement that it's only a One sided argument.

Yeah I know I'm way "over your head " here...

I have disagreement with Barr's conclusions.. as I have had with Scalia's..but as it refers to the one-sided argument there is no disagreement.

Let me explain Barr's position..And why he does, what he does. It not up to you to agree or disagree it's just up to you to understand..

Presidential power and the balance of power..without the rules of law, without certain agreement to that.. there can be no balance of power, just a continuing struggle as to who's got the power, and it's implementation that goes beyond the powers given the constitution
The Constitution.. deals only with the balance of power... Power of the president as to "checks", NOT balance......Those checks can only be made as to the legality of the action of the president as it relates to the Constitution. The President is given complete power... other than those limited checks, as provided in the Constitution..the idea that Congress or the Judiciary can Expand those limits of their checks is Unconstitutional..

So what does that mean? with Trump's Presidential Power... Why does the Constitution not provide a remedy?.
Well in Barr's mind it means that a criminal intent of a president can not be distinguished.. As long as a President operates with the confined of his powers.. his intent can not be questioned. In certain area of presidential power, like national security, his power is unquestionable.

Barr's concern is that..... We are now eroding Presidential power.. A power designed in our Constitution. And WE are eroding that power, and it's against our rule of law.

Barr will make it evident and emphasize that he will perform any duty requested the President.. that under the Constitution , in Barr's opinion. is within the power given to the President.

but in my mind....even though the president's intent may not be questionable to Barr..
I give no such right to BARR.


jiminycricket1 73M
13732 posts
11/17/2019 7:15 am

So where do I find fault with Barr..
Well, he said the Obama exceeded his power with DACA.. which he can make as an argument.
And he also said the Judiciary exceeded their authority by making the Muslim ban illegal for President Trump... When Trump's power for nation security is unquestionable...Which he also can make as an argument..

But I certainly don't have to agree with it.. I don't have to accept that it isn't hypocritical.. I don't have to accept what Barr uses as his definition of "what is "National Security"..

What i will agree to.. is that it is an argument to be made.. who's resolution can not be just Barr's........but with agreement, that a resolution can only be made, by the acceptance of a one-sided argument....of a one-sided country.
And that is what our constitution has provides us.. as the remedy to all our issues.


jiminycricket1 73M
13732 posts
11/17/2019 7:30 am

Basically Barr's argument that is correct.. not for just for Trump but for any President.. Is that the balance of power can NOT be achieved by diminishing the POWER of the presidency.

And what he believes... that I believe is incorrect...Is that the President can not exceed his power As the Constitution gives him ALL power that isn't limited.


sparkleflit 76F
10271 posts
11/17/2019 8:51 am

Trump has ceded much of his power to the Federalist Society by outsourcing his job of choosing the judiciary to them........


jiminycricket1 73M
13732 posts
11/18/2019 3:47 am

There are somethings implicit in the constitution that can not be clearly stated.. For example,, The rights of the self governed that has needs the The "right to know"..
Presidential power has the power to withhold somethings, from the citizens "Right To Know". that no other branch of government is given...Executive privilege, for example, that not only protects classified information but also the decision making processes.

The removal of Yovanivich as ambassador to the Ukraine is unimpeachable.
The presidential power of withholding our right to know, in regard to that removal is also unimpeachable.

The president can call the Ambassador and remover her.. without explanation.. is within his power and his right.. So would say Barr and so would say his supporters. And they would be RIGHT.
But if trump had simply done that ..There would have been no blowback from Yovanovich, The State department, or Congress..

The "What of it"....would have been a non issue.. They rights of the citizens to know. would have been a non-issue
However, The "How of it".. made it an issue.
From Barr's view, and Trump's supporters... Trump has been given carte blanche as to how he goes about things
I DISAGREE..

For a President the "what of it" is always in his power.. And any impeachable offense solely revolves around the "How of it"....

Where Trump has the ability to NOT tell Us anything....He doesn't have the ability to tell us anything. when he does speak.. HE must speak within the unstated limiting power the Constitution... THE TRUTH..
The semantical differences creates all the difference in the world.. Trump's power to NOT Tell Us the Truth.. and Trump's power to Tell Us a LIE
.


jiminycricket1 73M
13732 posts
11/18/2019 4:11 am

In my view there are only three questions to answer as to whether or not Trump is impeachable..

The issue of why Yovanovich was removed, by a means, which Trump did NOT have to use.
The issue of why the quid pro quo......was accompanied by the need for Zelenski's PUBLIC statement

Without an answer to these issues, or even responses..The answers become rhetorical..there are what they are. And standing alone without resolution are IMPEACHABLE

The third and far more difficult issue....IS RUSSIA...Russia's involvement.. there is no doubt in my mind that Russia is involved.. but the question to determine the extent is still an issue. From the normal view that any participant's influence would have on the decision making process. to a complicity in the decision making process.. To out and out CONTROL.

The problem with Barr's view of presidential power..Is the unquestioning, the inability to investigated or indict, and the power of secrecy and Lies
That gives the President the POWER to commit unimpeachable TREASON.


TxJW_3 81M

11/19/2019 5:59 pm

When trump throws Barr under the bus he will tell everyone why Barr is unsuitable for the job.
Party On!