First of all bargeroth, and try to keep up with me here, the ABA (american bar association) does two things. 1. is that they ensure attorney's practicing within the state they are going to trial in, have adaquete knowledge of that states law. 2. they monitor ethical and legal activity of attorney's to ensure that said attorney's are held accountable.

Clinton license to practice law in arkansas was revoked, not because of any legal issue. He was acquitted of all charges. As a result had he had any need to get his license back, he could have attended a hearing in which it would have been restored to him, so please dont act like being disbarred is some grand legal punishment.

ANY ATTORNEY whose is undergoing investigations, can, and most likely will have there license suspended during that time. Its a common procedure. When the investigation/trial is over, its relatively simple to get the license back.

Another point, that id like to make, is that if your going to quote me do it adaquetely. Severity is hardly the point i was making. legal corruption while there are varying levels, are still corruption no matter what.

Example: Murderer A, kills 1 male in hand to hand combat. Murderer B. goes into a preschool, and shoots and kills 11 children, and 3 adults. Yes, A, was less severe, but he has still violated a law.

BOTH ARE GUILTY OF A VIOLATION. One will recieve harsher penalty but both have shown the immorality. Ok so bush showed his disrespect for the united states, when he was 25, and clinton when he was 50, both have showed in there character that they have little respect for the law. Do you believe that becoming the president of the united states has made GW gain a vastly more respectful standpoint? Do you believe that uttering an oath administered by John Rehnquist makes him all the more accountable now?

Let me tell you a little something about oaths. They are only as good as the character of the person that states them. Clinton proved he didnt have character after he was voted in. The thing i dont understand is, Bush displayed his lack of character long before he was voted in, in many ways, whether it be, DUI convictions or sealing of state documents that made him look less presidential, and yet people honestly believed that saying "i promise to respect the law that ive shown such little respect for upto this point" will make him a better person? I just dont understand the logic behind that way of thinking.

Even more interestingly, and mentioned in my earlier posts. Military tribunals is one of the greatest abridgements of rule of law in the 20th and 21st century. It by far undermines the foundations of the government much more than a single man perjuring.

I present you with a direct quotation of the U.S. Bill of Rights Ammendment 6:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

You claim to be an intelligent person about the government.
Military tribunals are not speedy, not public, are not based upon juries, do not occur in districts in which the crime occured, in most cases the accused arent informed of what they are charged with, do not get prior knowledge to witness lists, does not have an oppurtunity to attain his own witnesses. Most importantly they dont follow

This is ok though because as a citizen it makes you feel comfortable and secure. Are you really going to tell me because the supreme court (which is relatively conservative) hasnt said, "NO BUSH, we cant allow this action anymore because its unconstitutional," means that its ok? Its the most blatant disregard any president has had for the constitution since FDR was in office. The constitution is a document that can change, but there are ways to go about making the change, and feeding on the fear of the masses isnt the proper way to do it. The message your sending out to everyone is that, yah the constitution can be obliterated when it makes me feel good, but the minute you disagree with the reason for its violation, the violator is the child of satan?

That kind of attitude is horrendous. Dont be a bandwagon patriot like so many of your contemporaries are. Stand up for the necessity of the constitution being correct all the time (and if change is needed its done through the proper channels), or none of the time, dont pick and choose, when it makes you feel good. If you become a "pick-and-chooser" you completely undermine any statement you can ever make about constitutional validity.

Recap: Your logic suggests that because clinton went to trial (and was acquitted) he violated the constitution to a disgusting degree. You also say since bush's crime was before he uttered a few words, that his crime doesnt show disregard for the legality of a nation. I just cant fathom, how your mind can say that a few words change a persons entire moral perspective. I mean theres lists upon lists in which Bush has violated the constitution, or the law of the nation while in office. No he hasnt went to trial about these issues. Clinton was acquitted. let me tell you waht acquitted essentially means. Acquitted means that you are NOT GUILTY of the allegations proposed. Even if afterwords, clintons says yah i lied, its irrelevant, according to your judicial system (the foundation of our civilization ,which we must have absolute respect for according to your opinion on rule of law) hes not guilty, and the allegations are therefore removed.

Essentially this means he (clinton) never went to trial, and the allegations never existed. Im going to be entirely and brutally honest here, there is a scale in which levels of thought are measured. The second level of 6, means that you are at the level of thought in which, you believe and do not question the legal situation. To me sir, you are below this level, not only do you not question the legal system, you quite frankly dont understand it, but tirelessly debate principles you dont comprehend.

Hastley
"who is annoyed with these trite arguements and having to waste 30 minutes responding to something that the reader probably wont understand"