By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Green jobs czar Van Jones resigns - GOP victory

halogamer1989 on 06 September 2009
Craan said:

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

Glenn Beck a crazy right wing nut job?  How about a HELL NO!  He called for this and the the GOP, libertarians (like Beck) and America has scored a HUGE +1.  Only 34 unconstitutional "czars" to kick out now!

You lose.

 

I win!  Read Art II Sec 2 of the Const. and reply once u have done so.  I have provided it in an above reply.



Around the Network
Sqrl on 06 September 2009
halogamer1989 said:
Sqrl said:

@Halo

Really man?  It's not very classy to cheer his resignation.  Besides, its not like the GoP hasn't had its share of emberrassing resignations....

While it may not be classy it is worth celebrating.  Here are links to his BS on the record insanities: http://www.breitbart.tv/van-jones-only-suburbal-white-kids-shoot-up-schools/

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=van+jones&search_type=&aq=f 

He wants to "save the polar bears for the benefit of poor black kids," "9/11 inside job," supported al-Qaida, etc.

In terms of substance I agree that all the Czars should be confirmed like cabinet officials or be forced to resign.  There is no reason these people can't stand up to a bit of scrutiny like every other person that weilds direct executive privelege at the pleasure of the president.

Specifically, I'm aware of why Van Jones was targeted, I just don't think celebrating it is very becoming.  You got what you wanted, I'm saying there is something to be said for being gracious in victory.
To Each Man, Responsibility
Craan on 06 September 2009
halogamer1989 said:
Craan said:

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

Glenn Beck a crazy right wing nut job?  How about a HELL NO!  He called for this and the the GOP, libertarians (like Beck) and America has scored a HUGE +1.  Only 34 unconstitutional "czars" to kick out now!

You lose.

 

I win!  Read Art II Sec 2 of the Const. and reply once u have done so.  I have provided it in an above reply.

Glenn Beck=fail



halogamer1989 on 06 September 2009
Sqrl said:
halogamer1989 said:
Sqrl said:

@Halo

Really man?  It's not very classy to cheer his resignation.  Besides, its not like the GoP hasn't had its share of emberrassing resignations....

While it may not be classy it is worth celebrating.  Here are links to his BS on the record insanities: http://www.breitbart.tv/van-jones-only-suburbal-white-kids-shoot-up-schools/

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=van+jones&search_type=&aq=f 

He wants to "save the polar bears for the benefit of poor black kids," "9/11 inside job," supported al-Qaida, etc.

In terms of substance I agree that all the Czars should be confirmed like cabinet officials or be forced to resign.  There is no reason these people can't stand up to a bit of scrutiny like every other person that weilds direct executive privelege at the pleasure of the president.

Specifically, I'm aware of why Van Jones was targeted, I just don't think celebrating it is very becoming.  You got what you wanted, I'm saying there is something to be said for being gracious in victory.

Possibly.  You know I might play it cool b/c I am a Student Senator but off the record I think this is a step in the right direction for America.  It has become so perverted from the original 1787 framework it is just sick.



Kasz216 on 06 September 2009

There is a "Green Jobs Czar"?

Seriously?

Why?


This is something the department of labor or some senators couldn't do?



Around the Network
Jackson50 on 06 September 2009
halogamer1989 said:

Montana see my edited section in ref 2 the Const.  As 4 any President's use of czars (Rep or Dem) as policy dept heads not ok'd by Cong I am against it.  I am a strict constructionalist.

A strict constructionist who supports the war in Iraq? Hmm...



HappySqurriel on 06 September 2009
Jackson50 said:
halogamer1989 said:

Montana see my edited section in ref 2 the Const.  As 4 any President's use of czars (Rep or Dem) as policy dept heads not ok'd by Cong I am against it.  I am a strict constructionalist.

A strict constructionist who supports the war in Iraq? Hmm...

It what way does the war in Iraq violate the constitution?



Jackson50 on 06 September 2009
HappySqurriel said:
Jackson50 said:
halogamer1989 said:

Montana see my edited section in ref 2 the Const.  As 4 any President's use of czars (Rep or Dem) as policy dept heads not ok'd by Cong I am against it.  I am a strict constructionalist.

A strict constructionist who supports the war in Iraq? Hmm...

It what way does the war in Iraq violate the constitution?

I never said it violated the Constitution; however, for a strict constructionist, a declaration of war would be required for military action. The US never declared war on Iraq. A strict cunstructionist is one who sticks to the words as they are written. Perhaps Halogamer intended to say that he was an originalist? I think he simply confused the terms. Even Justice Scalia, the archetypical Supreme Court Justice for conservatives, is highly critical of strict constructionism.



TheRealMafoo on 06 September 2009
Jackson50 said:
HappySqurriel said:
Jackson50 said:
halogamer1989 said:

Montana see my edited section in ref 2 the Const.  As 4 any President's use of czars (Rep or Dem) as policy dept heads not ok'd by Cong I am against it.  I am a strict constructionalist.

A strict constructionist who supports the war in Iraq? Hmm...

It what way does the war in Iraq violate the constitution?

I never said it violated the Constitution; however, for a strict constructionist, a declaration of war would be required for military action. The US never declared war on Iraq. A strict cunstructionist is one who sticks to the words as they are written. Perhaps Halogamer intended to say that he was an originalist? I think he simply confused the terms. Even Justice Scalia, the archetypical Supreme Court Justice for conservatives, is highly critical of strict constructionism.

I would call John Adams someone who believed in the Constitution, being he wrote it. The first military action without a declaration of war, was when John Adams was president in 1798.

As for Van Jones, this is not a Victory. Sadly, he quit. A victory would be if somehow scum like this was not allowed to hold his office. He was, he just chose not to.

Fired, would have been a Victory. 



Jackson50 on 06 September 2009
TheRealMafoo said:I would call John Adams someone who believed in the Constitution, being he wrote it. The first military action without a declaration of war, was when John Adams was president in 1798.

John Adams may have believed in the Constitution, but he was not a strict constructionist. Honestly, I wished conservatives would discontinue their use of that term. Its definition is different from what they think it is.