"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

However, since my copy of the Constitution contains neither the
word "gasoline", nor "global warming", nor "energy", nor "oil",
nor "environment", my oath of office would compel me to do
nothing.

Hmm, so you think that everything that GWB does, says, or tries to
get other countries to do is tied directely to the Constitution?

Read my response to Bedroom. GWB is a wretched president. As was
Clinton.
As was Bush pere.


Nice attempt at a dodge. ***ALL*** presidents got involved with
issues that were not part of their mandate.

Then there was no point in your specifying GWB. Why did you?

To refute your nonsense about how a president shouldn't get involved
with non-constitutional issues,

What does the presidential oath of office command the president to do?

because that was nothing but a tactic
you used to avoid answering my question about what YOU would do about
the scientific discovery I mentioned. Do you still remember? It was
less than 90 minutes ago.

I answered your question. Ask your mommy to read my answer to you.


Perhaps it would help if you saw some stupid people using hypothetical
arguments to tweeze apart ideas and understand them better:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Mr. Kayatta, if I took a drum of water out of the
river and put it in the garage next to the river for 5 years, and, 5 years
later, came out and poured that drum of water back into the river, is that a
discharge into the river?

MR. KAYATTA: Yes, that would be a discharge into the river.

MR. KAYATTA: There is -- we draw a distinction -- and I'm referring just to
discharge, I'm not addressing the issue that the Court could get to in
another case of whether you actually need a discharge of a pollutant, as to
just a discharge into the river -we draw a distinction between actually
removing something entirely from the river, exercising control over it. Your
hypothetical, Mr. Chief Justice, had it for 5 years. In that situation, one
could say that there may be a discharge into the river when an activity is
proposed to pour that back into the river. In a -- in the dams -- the dams,
the water continuously flows down. The water never leaves the single body of
water called the Presumpscot. And that's the distinction that we would draw.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Even though it's retained in a -- what -- an
impoundment pool, or whatever, behind --

MR. KAYATTA: Well, the dams slow down the water as it comes down the
Presumpscot. And because the dams slow down the water, then the river widens
in an area called an impoundment area. But the -- there is a continuous
motion leaving the dam in the same amount of water that comes into the area
above the dam.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, this --

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So, you think it's a different case if it's not a
continuous motion; in other words, that the water is released -- you know,
it's released on the weekends, but, during the week, it has to build up in
the -- you would draw a distinction and say there's a discharge, in that
case?

The rest is he

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...ts/04-1527.pdf