Roger Clemens

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by Dakota

From MLB.com (and dozens of other news outlets)

Report: Clemens sues McNamee. Pitcher claims defamation on part of former trainer

It would be great if he can prove that he has been clean. However, why would his Trainer lie? I understand to avoid prosecution he had to "tell the truth". He threw Pettet under the bus and he fessed up. Why claim Roger did it if in fact he's clean? Unless Roger figures his Trainer can't provide a paper trail or Roger never took performance enhancing drugs.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

To start with, Congress is only supposed to call tribunal hearings inferior to the Supreme Court. It was originally supposed to be a way to acquire information. It was never supposed to be the high and mighty proceedings that we have seen since the 1950's! They were never supposed to have any "power" other that acquire information. Remember, this was before the days of the FBI, US Marshals and Police agencies. Gathering facts for a National problem in those days was very difficult. Today, the Congress chooses to "investigate" anything it pleases with no regard to the cost either monetary or other! Leave this BS to the Judicial System.

It's not the job of the judicial system to investigate anything. The judiciary has way too much power as it is. Also, your allusion to tribunals inferior to SCOTUS is a falty analysis; that's irrelevant here. Congress has the ultimate authority, even over SCOTUS in certain respects. Congress cannot eliminate SCOTUS, or change SCOTUS's original jurisdiction authority--that's specified in Article III. However, it can remove SCOTUS's power to review any area of law it chooses (except, of course, those specifically permitted via original jurisdiction).

Congress can subpoena witnesses, or force them to testify under oath, before its committees. This authority comes from the Constitution's grant to Congress of “all legislative powers” (Article 1, Section 1). Witnesses are subpoenaed to provide information that will assist committees in preparing legislation. In the case of Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927), the Supreme Court recognized that Congress could subpoena even private citizens to testify. The Court noted that since not everyone would volunteer needed information, “some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.” Witnesses who refuse to respond to a congressional subpoena, or refuse to give information (unless they invoke their 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination) may be found in contempt of Congress and sent to prison.

[Dakota]

Nothing in the Constitution declares the rulings of the SCOTUS as "the law of the land." SCOTUS has the power it currently dictates onto the people because it declared that power for itself (otherwise known as "The Divine rights of Justices"). SCOTUS continues its slow gathering of power to itself while neither of the other two branches have had the rocks to defy the Supreme Court's self-declared supremacy.

Since the executive is the only branch with police powers, and the legislative is the only branch with taxing / purse powers, either or both could legally and easily (theoretically) curtail the out-of-control (IMO) federal judiciary.

They (executive and judiciary) have failed to adequately put the SCOTUS and the federal judiciary in general back in line as a co-equal branch, preferring to operate as subservient while trying to stack the court so the dictates of the court would agree with the politics of those currently in power in each branch.

JMO, and only JMO.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Nothing in the Constitution declares the rulings of the SCOTUS as "the law of the land." SCOTUS has the power it currently dictates onto the people because it declared that power for itself (otherwise known as "The Divine rights of Justices").

That would be because of Marbury v. Madison. Regardless, decisions of SCOTUS are, indeed, the law of the land and cannot be altered unless by an act of Congress (if it's not a constitutional "right") or by a constitutional amendment or by a future SCOTUS reversal.

SCOTUS continues its slow gathering of power to itself while neither of the other two branches have had the rocks to defy the Supreme Court's self-declared supremacy.

I won't deny this, and it's something that ought to bother all Americans, not just conservatives (who seem to be the ones doing the most complaining about this).

Since the executive is the only branch with police powers, and the legislative is the only branch with taxing / purse powers, either or both could legally and easily (theoretically) curtail the out-of-control (IMO) federal judiciary.

The Executive Branch can't curtail judicial rulings, save perhaps to defy them, which I do not support at all. Congress, on the other hand, has the final say over both the Executive and the Judiciary, which is at it should be.

[SAump]

Roger lied when he stated he hoped to play another year. He's lied about that at least 3 times.
Roger named at least 5 drugs he injested. How many more hasn't he fessed up to taking?
Anyway, Roger better hope his training partner didn't leave a paper trail.
Oops, his training partner was caught and plead guilty for having one.
Any bets MLB and the government will lose some of the evidence?
Phone call, for Mr. Jason Grimsley!
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/column...son&id=2474247
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2609002

[lawump]

Wow. I went to law school and spent 3 years and tens of thousands of dollars studying Constitutional Law (yeah, I was a constitutional law nerd)...but if I had just been patient I could have learned it all here. (sigh)

Is it too late to get a refund?

[UMP25]

I would. Lawyers make terrible constitutional law experts.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by lawump

Wow. I went to law school and spent 3 years and tens of thousands of dollars studying Constitutional Law (yeah, I was a constitutional law nerd)...but if I had just been patient I could have learned it all here. (sigh)

Is it too late to get a refund?

Does there even exist a single constitutional law professor anywhere who disagrees with the slow march of where Marbury v. Madison has taken us?

I didn't think so. Constitutional law's objective is to teach the status quo, not to defy it. Turning out cookie cutter "experts."

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by UMP25

That would be because of Marbury v. Madison.

Thanks. I didn't remember the case, and was too lazy to look it up.

Originally Posted by UMP25

I won't deny this, and it's something that ought to bother all Americans, not just conservatives (who seem to be the ones doing the most complaining about this).

I agree, and am constantly amazed at the left's willingness to be ruled by a judicial monarchy.

Originally Posted by UMP25

The Executive Branch can't curtail judicial rulings, save perhaps to defy them, which I do not support at all. Congress, on the other hand, has the final say over both the Executive and the Judiciary, which is at it should be.

Agreed, again. There have been some rulings the executive should have defied (refused to enforce, etc.). The press would go wild with screaming headlines of "Constitutional Crisis", but without some push-back, the march keeps moving forward to where the SCOTUS has become our own politburo. The constitution places most power into the hands of "the people" and Congress (as the representatives of the people). The Founders were very wary of a powerful central monarchy, hence the limitations on the Executive and in general on the Federal Government. However, with the self-serving cooperation of the SCOTUS, these limitations have been "interpreted" into near meaninglessness.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by lawump

Wow. I went to law school and spent 3 years and tens of thousands of dollars studying Constitutional Law (yeah, I was a constitutional law nerd)...but if I had just been patient I could have learned it all here. (sigh)

Is it too late to get a refund?

Stick around and other people will claim they know more than folks that have expertise in other fields. Law is just one of the expertises of this board. Do not discuss cultural things either; they think if they read something, it must be true.

Peace

[lawump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I didn't think so. Constitutional law's objective is to teach the status quo, not to defy it. Turning out cookie cutter "experts."

Been to law school? If so, I'm sorry you feel that way. Maybe you need the refund. Certainly not the case with my various Constitutional law professors. (And, yes, I took courses led by true "liberals" and some led by true "conservatives".)

BTW, do you want nestle's toll house or oatmeal?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

It would be great if he can prove that he has been clean. However, why would his Trainer lie? I understand to avoid prosecution he had to "tell the truth". He threw Pettet under the bus and he fessed up. Why claim Roger did it if in fact he's clean? Unless Roger figures his Trainer can't provide a paper trail or Roger never took performance enhancing drugs.

He has a lot of motive. The bigger the names, the better they let you off. If you claim you really were involved in something, they might give you a reduced sentence. It is no different in any Federal case. They do not want small people, they want the big fish. And if you can claim that your illegal dealings involved the biggest of names, the better. Just like the IRS does not go after people that owe a $100 on their taxes. But if you owe thousands and blatantly are avoiding filing, they go after you.

Peace

[etn_ump]

The Vols beat yall by 4 touchdowns in '01 so shut up!

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He has a lot of motive. The bigger the names, the better they let you off. If you claim you really were involved in something, they might give you a reduced sentence. It is no different in any Federal case. They do not want small people, they want the big fish. And if you can claim that your illegal dealings involved the biggest of names, the better. Just like the IRS does not go after people that owe a $100 on their taxes. But if you owe thousands and blatantly are avoiding filing, they go after you.

Peace

The flaw in this explanaton is that McNamee was granted immunity in exchange for telling the truth and, according to his lawyer, was told that if it turned out he lied he stood to lose his immunity.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by GarthB

The flaw in this explanaton is that McNamee was granted immunity in exchange for telling the truth and, according to his lawyer, was told that if it turned out he lied he stood to lose his immunity.

Of course he was. That is why he has a motivation to give them what they want. Either way it goes, none of us know the truth. But to make it sound like he could not be lying because he does not have a motive is silly. When you are given immunity, it is done so the government gets what they really want. McNamee is not who they are going after.

And if you listened to the phone conversation, it was clear McNamee was trying to apologize to Roger for what he had done. If you are telling the truth, why apologize?

Peace