But the argument of “where in the constitution does it say the government can X, Y, or Z” argument would eliminate most all of what the government does. Where does it say that the government can buy a big hunk of territory from France, or that that the government can build the interstate highway system, or that it can draft men into the service, or that it can regulate broadcasts on the airways, or that it can pay farmers subsidies, or that …well, you get the point.

Some of those may be fairly closely adumbrated in the Constitution, but for the most part, the government has been pursuing –in fits and starts, and with various arguments along the way– the goals listed in the preamble, where “We the people of the United States,

in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

At a time when the economy was teetering on the edge of another Great Depression, and when two of the three huge American automobile companies were about to go belly-up, thereby creating with its ripples another perhaps one and a half million unemployed, and compounding the already two-trillion dollar shortfall in demand in the American economy, keeping those companies afloat certainly seems to qualify as a means of “promoting the general Welfare.”

Your semantic mind tricks don’t work on me, young Jedi:-)

You’re right, Ray Pine, when you say you’re confused.

“Encroachment”? If someone says, I will leave you alone, or I will rescue you, but if you choose the latter there are some conditions– that’s encroachment. You see no difference between the president firing someone who is not under his control, and that person’s being fired by those with the authority because they NEED help that comes with those conditions?

Hardly semantic mind tricks. You raised this whole issue under the banner of this government involvement in GM somehow showing Obama’s disregard for “the rule of law.” There’s nothing whatever illegal about a rescue that has conditions.

Indeed, if you want to fault Obama, you should fault him for not having imposed more conditions upon the people on Wall Street who also would have gone under without government help (though a good deal of that mistake –or corruption– was committed by the previous administration).

Tell me, Ray, are you really unable to see the vital distinction –where it comes to the rule of law, or where it comes to that question you raise about the constitution and a president presumably “directing the actions of private businesses”– between interfering with a corporation that wants to be let alone and imposing conditions on a corporation that is desperate NOT to be let alone because on its own it will fail?

I’m curious re- how much you know re- holes in the government’s narrative concerning 9/11. That is to say that the government’s narrative, if nothing else, is itself a “conspiracy theory.”

President Obama’s respect for the rule of law was made clear to me when he fired the CEO of GM

Well, the better you understand what you’re talking about the better able you’ll be to help me with those scales over my eyes. The CEO of GM was fired by the company’s Board of Directors. Obama had a lot of leverage over GM at that point, since without the corporation’s being propped up by the government, it was going to go belly-up. But putting conditions upon a rescue is NOT the same as interfering. And there was nothing in the transaction that violated in any way “the rule of law.”

There was a case only because right-wing money had gone looking for a way to bring Clinton down.

These are on the factual record.

So, no, it’s not OK for some average Joe, or anyone, to lie under oath in any kind of case.

But no, that’s not what impeachment was put into the Constitution for. It was not intended as a means for political forces to destroy a presidency over private conduct. It was there as a way of protecting the integrity of the Constitutional system against abuses of the power that a president holds under that system.

Lying about sex was not an assault on the system. Nixon’s sending in Plumbers to spy on the opposition parties, or to rifle the files at the Brookings Institution, and his using the FBI for his own political purposes against his enemies– those were abuses of power that the Founders wanted Congress to be able to punish by removal from office. With W, the list of such abuses was much, much longer.

I don’t know about what’s being done on warrantless eavesdropping by this administration, but there ARE a lot of ways in which this president’s has had his Justice Department at least DEFEND, if not practice, some of the power-grabbing of the Bushites. I suspect this is a CYA effort, leaving little room between his approach to national security and Bush’s, since every time he does ANYTHING different, the right-wing types like Cheney raise the hue and cry about “He’s not protecting us!” But whatever the reason, I disapprove strongly.

Obama’s taken some important steps toward restoring the rule of law. But he hasn’t gone nearly far enough.

So lying under oath is ok if you are lying about a sexual act?
Haven’t heard anything about the recent broadly bipartisan renewal of the Patriot Act, is that piece of legislation ok by you, now that there’s a Dem in the White House?
Have you heard anything about the Holder justice dept using warrentless eavesdropping to ferret out overseas financial finagling?

I’m glad you enjoyed the letter.

I want to add that I think the construct “Dominated” fits the situation quite well, and I wonder if you are viewing the situation too narrowly. Context seems quite important here.

Meanwhile, this from Jim Hightower on CommonDreams – (and clearly the backbone image applies to much more than the economy):

Stiffening the Backbones of Democrats

“You know what we need to juice up the performance of our weak economy? Viagra.

“Yes, America needs a new Viagra, specifically targeted to stiffen backbones – in particular, the limp backbones of Barack Obama’s team, as well as the flaccid spines of Democratic congressional leaders. Where’s the drug industry when we really need it?

“The Obama-ites seem incapable of firm stands. They excite us by boldly addressing our economic woes, then they seduce us by proposing stout actions. But when it comes time to follow through – it’s droopsville……………………”