OpEdNews » Are Some Laws Only Enforcible at Certain Times?

Support OEN
With Your
Tax-Deductible Donation

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
Diaries	Products
Events	All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): Congress; Crime; Ignorance; Impeachment; Laws; People; Politics
Add to My Group

January 30, 2008 at 18:19:10

View Ratings | Rate It

Are Some Laws Only Enforcible at Certain Times?

by Timothy V. Gatto Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

I’m not saying to forget about impeaching Bush or Cheney, but I believe that the Democrats we have in Congress have different priorities than the American people do, and we are not going to see impeachment with these Democrats in office. I am no longer surprised to see someone like John Conyers behave in a cavalier way when someone such as Rob Kall, the publisher of OpEdNews.com, when he asked why Congress hasn’t done anything about this president breaking the law. Representative Conyers seemed to be actually talking down to Rob.

We know Conyers has been in office quite a while. Maybe that is his problem! Maybe the reason he acts as if we haven’t a clue about how politics really works, is because it doesn’t work as it’s supposed to work. All of the nuances that he believes he is privy to, in my opinion, just shouldn’t exist. He is worried about how impeachment would “look” to the voters in 2008. This, quite frankly, should not be a concern. What should be a concern is whether or not the President and Vice President broke the law and worked against the best interests of the American people. That should be the over riding concern of Representative Conyers, not about how the issue of impeachment would affect the bottom line of electing Democrats to Congress.

Without getting into all the specifics of how many times this Administration has committed crimes, I would only like to point out that they broke the law by spying on Americans without proper legal authorization. Members of the administration disclosed the name of a CIA covert intelligence operative, and the one that was convicted of this act of treason, was pardoned by the very same administration. Meanwhile, those that cite patriotism as the overwhelming reason why they support the President and Vice President, seem to have overlooked crimes committed against the American people by these very same men. These same supporters support an administration that have distorted facts and committed outright treason by lying about the reasons they took this nation to war.

The so-called “patriotic” Americans of the right are also very comfortable with this president signing statements on what parts of a law the he just signed, that he will abide by. If the president doesn’t believe that a law is just and fair in all aspects, he has the option, which is perfectly legal, to veto that law. I would like to know if the sections of the law he doesn’t prefer to follow, are only for him to ignore, or is it for every American to ignore the sections he doesn’t care for? Is it the President who is above the law, or is it everyone?

I fail to see the reasoning behind any of this. Whether it’s the President only wanting to follow the laws that he feels are legitimate, or John Conyers explaining why it is a bad time to charge George W. Bush and Richard Cheney for breaking the law? Is there a special “season” where lawmakers only obey the laws they like or enforce the laws that others break? Is the law only the law for some of us and not for others? Is there a form somewhere that I can sign that will allow me to only obey the laws that I approve of? What about a "fact sheet" that would let me know what laws are going to be enforced and what laws are not?

I realize that Rob Kall is not a professional politician. I am in that same category; I don’t know what laws are “real” and what laws aren’t. The way to resolve all of this would to enforce all the laws on the books. The laws that are outdated or unjust should be repealed. This would prevent John Conyers from treating me like the village idiot if I happened to ask him about why some individuals are prosecuted, and why some are not. I went to school and I read the papers. In my 57 years I have tried to keep up with the law because ignorance of the law is no defense, and I really don’t want to commit a crime if I can help it. The thing that I want clarified, is why can some people break the law without any fear of being prosecuted? Maybe I should run for president, or at least get a hold of that "fact sheet" that Bush and Conyers have. That way I would know what laws are “in-season” and what laws are not.

That’s the way I see it.

http://liberalpro.blogspot.com

Tim was banned from the site for posting private email from the publisher to him on his blog, and then attacking the publisher and the site in emails and articles. OEN has no responsibility to publish articles from people who attack the site. Tim's accusations that he was banned for his political positions are untrue. Check his articles. He repetitively wrote about and had published exactly the things he claimed he was banned for doing.

Former Chairman of the Liberal Party of America, Tim is a retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina. A regular contributor to OpEdNews, he is the author of Kimchee Kronicles and is currently at work on a new novel.

	Contact Author
	Contact Editor
	View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

4 comments

Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com and is a columnist with Northstarwriters.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump s...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Rob KallRob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com and is a columnist with Northstarwriters.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump s...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Funny thing.

John Conyers didn't make me feel like he was talking down to me, not one bit.

But there was a moment in the conversation, which you can see here , with my comments and the transcript, when he gave me a look, with a smile, where it seemed like he was thinking, "Why you young whippersnapper you, I was impeaching Nixon when you were still in college. (which I was) Where do you get off lecturing me on what impeachment is?"

And you know what? He was right. I was just fine with that and smiled with him. Now, just last week, I wrote an article, Trolls, Anger, Taking Offense and One-Hit- Wonders.

You see, taking offense, seeing insult, is very much in the eye of the beholder. If I took offense, my anger might have distracted me from my goal, which was to keep the conversation going deeper, which I think I did. If I took offense, and responded angrily, or calling him on it, the conversation and perhaps the relationship would have been over.

I like John Conyers. He's smart, sharp, alert. I hope I'll have his brain when I'm about to turn 80. This nasty name calling is senseless. Ask the questions about the law, about action, but the rest of the comments, on the man-- useless or worse. Rise above the urge. You have too much intelligent commentary to offer to waste your time on angry ranting calling names.

by Rob Kall (869 articles, 4014 quicklinks, 345 diaries, 1846 comments) on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 6:46:03 PM

Tim was banned from the site for posting private email from the publisher to him on his blog, and then attacking the publisher and the site in emails and articles. OEN has no responsibility to publish articles from people who attack the site.

Tim's accusations that he was banned for his political positions are untrue. Check his articles. He repetitively wrote about and had published exactly the things he claimed he was banned for doing.

Former Chairman of the Liberal ...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Timothy V. GattoTim was banned from the site for posting private email from the publisher to him on his blog, and then attacking the publisher and the site in emails and articles. OEN has no responsibility to publish articles from people who attack the site.

Tim's accusations that he was banned for his political positions are untrue. Check his articles. He repetitively wrote about and had published exactly the things he claimed he was banned for doing.

Former Chairman of the Liberal ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

There was no name calling

I just said that he seemed as if he were patronizing you. I wasn't there, but I saw the video. I don't happen to care for "professional politicians". I know that we should be by now, but I don't think that is what the framers of the Constitution wanted, maybe in the Senate, but not in the House. I respect the way you handled him, but I didn't respect the way that he disregarded your question as if you just didn't "get it". You knew what you were trying to convey to him, I just don't think he understood how serious that conversation was. I for one am tired of politicians acting as if they know better than the people they are suppossed to represent. Their views should be secondary, especially when they are centered on political expediancy, not justice.

by Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments) on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 7:04:19 PM

Sigh.

YOu're right. You didn't call him names. I guess I was reacting to all the comments on my article that did. Sorry about that. Your article certainly reflects the feelings of at least hundreds of thousands, probably millions of Americans.

by Rob Kall (869 articles, 4014 quicklinks, 345 diaries, 1846 comments) on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 3:19:02 AM

Just a plain working person that is sick of the lies and our ego driven complacency about those lies.
arlen custerJust a plain working person that is sick of the lies and our ego driven complacency about those lies.

Laws are for controlling the many not the few

There is a fact I learned about law in this country at the tender age of 18. Law means nothing and if you break a law your consequences are = to the amount of money [power] you have. For the rich and powerful there is no law that can’t be circumvented.

by arlen custer (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 288 comments) on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 8:40:14 AM