All you wingnuts on both sides keep blaming POTUS for things he has very
little direct control over. Taxes, Deficit, stupid laws of questionable
constitutionality, etc. Blame the 535 fools on the hill, for that is
where the power lies. POTUS only gets away with stupid stuff they write
laws authorizing, and appropriate money for. Get them some balls and a
brain, and if they roll over for the party and the special interests,
vote their sorry asses out. As ineffective as most of them are, the
reelection rate for them is shockingly high. In a real world job, if you
did that bad, you wouldn't get 2 years or 6, you'd be out in six months,
POTUS can veto or pocket-veto any bill passed by Congress,and then Congress
must either override his veto(requiring a supermajority) or the bill is
dead.Then they would have to write and pass a NEW bill,perhaps more to
POTUS's liking,or drop the idea.
POTUS can also make requests of Congress,that they include or remove
language POTUS doesn't like,before they vote on the bill.
POTUS can also ask that some Congress-person propose a bill.
Generally, the executive branch develops proposed legislation dealing with
the workings of government (i.e., Patriot Act) and gets a friendly member of
Congress to introduce it. This makes sense in that the executive branch is
the expert in the inner machinations of government.
Conversely, lobbyists propose legislation dealing with non-governmental
activities (i.e., tariffs on the importation of hydrogenated yak-fat) and
get a friendly member to introduce it. This, too, makes sense because
industry, unions, interest groups, etc. know more about the activity under
consideration than either the executive branch or the Congress.
Implicit in these two vectors is the simple truth that the Congress is the
expert in exactly nothing.
An amendment found in the Patriot Act defines domestic terrorism as "(A)
involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal
laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended (i) to
intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of
a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of
a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C)
occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
See Section 802 here:
Which amends 18 USC 2331, the result of which is here:
They make them up as they go along. Pointing
your finger at one of the royal federal servants
is now considered terrorism. If you send them a
letter and talcum powder happens to get on it,
you will be charged with terrorism.
According to these links, it looks like both people were dealt with by the
feds, one was given 30 months, the other 57 months.
Thanks for refreshing my memory; a six-year old story loses something in
Looks like the younger terrorist (14) got the 30 months, probably until he
turned 17 or 18.
Still, as Dan Rather often says, "the facts were wrong, but the narrative
IOW, there was never a charge of "domestic terrorism." The kid was a common
thief and he got a 2-1/2 year sentence. That sounds about average, perhaps
even a bit light considering there was arson involved.
Well, you're right in that juveniles are not "charged" with anything like an
adult would be. They get sent away for "supervision," not for the act that
caused the ruckus. The U.S. Attorney only had to make the case that a
federal interest was involved. He could do that with the terrorism angle, or
that the arson involved affected something that moved in interstate
commerce, or any number of other "hooks."
More likely someone from Bush's office called and said, "Let's go after these
kids." In any case, 30 months for arson and grand larceny isn't all that
much. I know of someone who nearly got five years for pointing and not firing
a gun at some guy who tried to run him off the road because the "victim" was a
friend of the local DA.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.