Caligula Obama Link

[Onasander]

Im reading 'The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession' on my Kindle, via a free sample that coincidentally covers Roman Law and the religious origins of Jurists.

 

It mentions in location 488 that Suetonius related among the symptoms of madness in Caligula was that he often expressed the wish to control the Jurists so that they would produce no responsa of which he did not approve....

 

That has Obama written all over it. I cant imagine anyone in the entirity of American history more hostile and controlling of our American Independent legal tradition. Its so bad many members of the supreme court wont attend State of the Union Speeches, given Obamas lies and direct intimidation in their presence.

 

How many other parallels in terms of madness by Roman Emperors can be found in the conduct of modern leaders, Chief Executives of states in particular?

[Virgil61]

Im reading 'The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession' on my Kindle, via a free sample that coincidentally covers Roman Law and the religious origins of Jurists.

 

It mentions in location 488 that Suetonius related among the symptoms of madness in Caligula was that he often expressed the wish to control the Jurists so that they would produce no responsa of which he did not approve....

 

That has Obama written all over it. I cant imagine anyone in the entirity of American history more hostile and controlling of our American Independent legal tradition. Its so bad many members of the supreme court wont attend State of the Union Speeches, given Obamas lies and direct intimidation in their presence.

 

How many other parallels in terms of madness by Roman Emperors can be found in the conduct of modern leaders, Chief Executives of states in particular?

 

OK, I'll bite.

 

The premise that Obama is the equivalent to Caligula, even as far as legal reasoning goes is ridiculous.

 

First he there isn't a bit of evidence to show that he is 'more hostile and controlling of our American independent legal tradition' than  anyone--esp other presidents. Your personal dislike for his policies isn't the same as a rational argument for his supposed hostility. I challenge you to present evidence.

 

Neither have the SCOTUS justices boycotted the State of the Union address over perceived intimidation. Justices have often not gone to these things; Rehnquist was the chief justice attended only a handful. Scalia hasn't attended since '97. Alito famously showed a lack of respect in the 2010 address, got criticized for it & never returned. It's no ones fault he can't man-up and go, if it's criticism that's 'intimidated' him then he's probably in the wrong job. It's naive to think that Obama has lied more than other presidents. Again show evidence that the justices have been intimidated or have used Obama's lies as an excuse not to attend.

[Onasander]

Which policies do I stand oppose to? There are positive and negative applications of technique that can benifit a overall aim in any statecraft. Unless clearly unethical or inhumane, or leading to a continual reduction of returns to maintain any stable, sane system of government, I vary rarely speak out on policies, but the concept, expectations, and execution of policies.

 

The whole damn point of a democracy is to vote on laws. No damn point to force a ideal system on something with a nebulous, morphous nature.

 

I stand deeply hostile to socialism that only leads to deminishing returns and eventual ruin, not socialism persay. If people really, really want it, but for whatever reason it cant happen, that needs to be studied, and a range of alternative remedies to be proposed.

 

So you bit Virgil, but you bit the wrong target.

 

I pointed out the obvious paralell between Obama attempts to control congress and the judiciary. The topic is Tyranny, something trans tactic based individual policies, as it is a consistent behavior to a favored end, and not any given favored means asserted persay.

 

He is a classical tyrant. Plain and obvious, shitting on the bylaws of our republic. He effectively knocked out a entire half of our bicameral legislator, the house of representatives by eliminating the Origination Clause. All the history between the Magna Carta to the present, erased. Chucked out the window with a smile. He makes laws and discards them, and modifies them with a alarming rate..... even though that is not the executive brances function.

 

He lives for one thing, and that is power. What is power? A article if faith even a Atheist holds in our unconscious appreciation for delusions of grandure. Every mental disease exists just beneath the surface of every sane man..... we all know and have a appreciation for such impulses, but what is this, this power? A feeling, a ego identity triggered by a cascade of neuro chemicals?

 

Obama learned what power was by envy and history. Its a schematic concept he is chasing. Certain milestones has to be passed before he accepts it as reality. That he actually possesses power, a legacy, victory and messiahship. These, we know not to be secular terms, but aspects of crude, ancient religious cults.

 

He is pure metaphysics, leading what still remains and functions in our republic in a ratrace against itself.

 

Whip out a damn policy of his..... I'll show you hidden merits you are not even aware of, as well as inefficiencies in application, and political and constitutional friction. No law or policy, however just or evil its intentions, is totally without qualities of either nature.

 

So no, I do not 'Oppose' Obama's policies, or most any leaders, save for the purely unethical and malicious. But know I will piss and spit on tragic trends. That is the Officiorum my nature is eternally bound to.

[Onasander]

In a case of modern madness, Stalin's Purge of his military in the years immediately prior to WW2 cost the soviet union dearly. It is the chief cause of the Soviet Union' years of ruin, and near conquest by the Nazis.

 

It was disturbing in both how pragmatic it was, and how deeply disturbing it was, leaving the entire country decimated for a short term sense of security, that lead to Russian ruin.

 

There are a few Roman leaders who come to mind, but no solitary, Archetype during Roman times that unite all these qualities. Nero comes close in some regards, but his means of targeting intellectuals in the courts, and scapegoating religious sects..... not quite the same.

 

Yet I get a very Roman feel from Stalins madness. Its different from Obama or Hitler.

 

Did any Roman Emperors systemmatically reduce the state and military, outside of civil wars, to perserve a paranoid sense of security and control?

[Virgil61]

[This isn't the place for this discussion. If the mods ever show up it would be nice if they moved it.]

At least you didn't double-down on the SCOTUS boycotting the State of the Union argument.

 

Which policies do I stand oppose to? There are positive and negative applications of technique that can benifit a overall aim in any statecraft. Unless clearly unethical or inhumane, or leading to a continual reduction of returns to maintain any stable, sane system of government, I vary rarely speak out on policies, but the concept, expectations, and execution of policies.

 
This makes no sense since concept & expectations [if not execution] are part and parcel to policy, any policy. Look I know a few things about policy & the law. I left active-duty to become a lawyer & worked downtown DC for a federal agency for several years. I know education and experience mean little to a certain crowd so anyway...

 

The whole damn point of a democracy is to vote on laws. No damn point to force a ideal system on something with a nebulous, morphous nature.

 
The presidency & Senate are in Dem hands though popular vote. The House passed the ACA. The nation knew about the ACA prior to the 2012 election and still handed the Dems a 59.9 - 58.5 mil win over the 'Pubs in congressional elections & the president a 65.9 - 60 mil win over Romney not to mention a lopsided electoral count.

 

I
pointed out the obvious paralell between Obama attempts to control congress and the judiciary. The topic is Tyranny, something trans tactic based individual policies, as it is a consistent behavior to a favored end, and not any given favored means asserted persay.

 
You made an outrageous claim that Obama was like Caligula in his disregard for the American legal tradition but gave no evidence for it [see below]. He appoints judges. His only control of congress is through pressure, the kind every president has exerted, on his own party. He is allowed certain administrative law 'elbow room' like other presidents in the executive branch. You haven't shown evidence of anything else.

 

He is a classical tyrant. Plain and obvious, shitting on the bylaws of our republic. He effectively knocked out a entire half of our bicameral legislator, the house of representatives by eliminating the Origination Clause. All the history between the Magna Carta to the present, erased. Chucked out the window with a smile. He makes laws and discards them, and modifies them with a alarming
rate..... even though that is not the executive brances function.

 
Yeah Tyrants like to have health care bills passed by a majority in the House and Senate.

 

Someone has blown serious smoke up your rear-end.

The Origination Clause argument is a crock for the consumption of those who simply want to believe, but to blame it on Obama is glaringly ignorant of the facts. There is a briefing filed against the ACA by a right wing group w/the support of a lot of 'Pubs. It uses the Origination Clause argument. That somehow has 'internet morphed' into Obama having eliminated the House of revenue responsibility and all that 'Magna Carta & the present, erased' stuff.
 
Obama did not pass the health care law, the House and Senate did. In fact presidents, Obama or any other pass no laws. Basic civics.

 

The Origination Clause argument [once again nothing to do with Obama] has to do with the fact that the ACA bill

Edited November 23, 2013 by Virgil61