Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Higer law? And yet you continue to make accusations about Mr Rove while having not one shred of evidence to back any of it up? That's interesting!!there is a higher law than winning and losing, mach, and that is exactly what Christ came to address. there is an ethical imperitive that we are called to. mr rove is the poster boy for rejecting those ethics.
There are some who believe Rove is an atheist. If this is true then it should not surprise you as to why Rove would not subscribe to a higher law over winning and losing.there is a higher law than winning and losing, mach, and that is exactly what Christ came to address. there is an ethical imperitive that we are called to. mr rove is the poster boy for rejecting those ethics.
Once again, criminal investigations are outside the purview of Congress. Any investigation would have to go through the Justice Dept
It's called the separation of powers. Again, what is the goal of Congress in issuing the subpoena. What would they do with the information?
On the contrary, what others are proposing is that Congress is superior to the Executive and thus has powers to criminally investigate the Administration. They do not. The power of subpoena is supposed to be used to gather information necessary to produce legislation, which is the Congress' jobThere's also checks and balances. What you advocate means that the executive is above the law and the other branches of government. This is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to avoid.
They investigate senators for ethics violations
I don't know that Rove has done anything wrong unless I believe your claim that evidence isn't necessary and that your claim of wrongdoing is sufficient, which I don't
Rove isn't a Senatoryes; those ethics violations are sometimes criminal.
So for what reasons were they fired that would amount to discrimination (one way or another, you have to come up with evidence other than mere accusations)Well, if you think hiring/firing people from a job based on discrimination of political affiliation isn't criminal, then, well, thats your perogative; however, to the law, it is a criminal act.
Then provide the evidenceTo hire/fire anyone based on religion, sex, gender, ethnicity, political affiliation IS a criminl act, and theres substantial evidence to suggest thats exactly what the Bush admin was doing, and Rove knows it.
In light of the lack of evidence, I'm saying that Rove has no involvement in such activitiesAre you suggesting those unethical hiring/firing processes are somehow, legal, and something they should be ALLOWED to do?
Do you remember executive privilege? The Congress holds no such authority over the Executive. End of storyThe evidence lies with Mr Rove's testimony; now, if he had nothing to hide, he would testify.
Testifying wouldn't be detrimental to national security in anyway, so therefore, there should be no reason why he shouldn't testify.
If he's innocent, he would testify.
That link mentions no illegal activity whatsoever. It does , however, say this
Thanks for that little tidbit, which is what I pointed out to you earlierOn its face, the plan is not improper, inappropriate or even unusual: The president has the right to fire U.S. attorneys at any time, and presidents have done so when they took office.
Ah, herein lies your error which is causing you confusion. A point you might have discovered on your own had you taken your own advice and consulted your civics book. the job of investigating federal crimes is the responsibility of the Justice Dept, as I said earlier. So what you are advocating is a power grab by Congress to circumvent the law and take power away from the Executive branch by investigating crimes which is not a power of Congress derived from the Constitutionexecutive privelege doesnt give the executive branch the right to break the law.
and now you say "show evidence he broke the law"
and I say "they need an investigation"
you say "they cant invetigate him, thats not their job"
and I say "well whose job is it then?"
you say "no ones because no one broke the law"
Why do you suppose the Justice Dept has not initiated an investigation?
It's because there's no evidence of a crime. That's the one thing you've demonstrated here clearly, that people hate Rove, he was involved in something legal, but they want to call it a crime despite the lack of any evidence.Because they probably were all frat boys together in the same house, thats why.
Theyre all in bed with each other....
Err...according to the Supreme Courts in many decisions you are in error. Congress does have power to impeach and remove those of the executive branch, and in order to have that ability, they need to know what is or isn't going on so therefore they do have the power of investigation.On the contrary, what others are proposing is that Congress is superior to the Executive and thus has powers to criminally investigate the Administration. They do not. The power of subpoena is supposed to be used to gather information necessary to produce legislation, which is the Congress' job
Why do you suppose the Justice Dept has not initiated an investigation?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?