# Prominent U.S. Physicists Ask Congress

1. Feb 2, 2007

2. Feb 2, 2007

### Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Good for them! I support that.

3. Feb 2, 2007

### Schrodinger's Dog

Could Bush not veto this, would this veto be overturned?

4. Feb 2, 2007

### complexPHILOSOPHY

Assuming the letter even makes an impact on Congress, I believe Bush does have the power to veto, however, two-thirds Congress can override his veto.

Bush is a lameduck president, now. All my protesting efforts in Washington D.C. during 9/11 and the Invasion of Iraq (which instantly convinced me to get out of the Army Delayed Entry Program a month before I was supposed to head to basic training) will finally start paying off.

Checks and balances!

5. Feb 2, 2007

### Schrodinger's Dog

That's what I mean would they overturn it?

6. Feb 2, 2007

### complexPHILOSOPHY

Well, the democrats have majority control over the house and the senate, which essentially makes Bush a lameduck president (all policies that he attempts to pass or construct, would be immediately halted if the democrats did not support it). Assuming Congress votes according to their party lines, I would assume Bush would be over-turned. Especially if the letter attracts national attention. Granted, this letter might not even get reviewed in any meaningful way but it has the support of some pretty high-profile academics.

Then again, I am recalling from memory lectures in my high school government class, so I might be incorrect. I will read into it. I would like to see the U.S. take a step towards nuclear prohibition or at the least, some fashion of restriction. It would not only make me feel more secure but I think would have a positive reception from other countries.

I would like to see us just get rid of nuclear weapons altogether but I know that is my idealism talking. I really am so disconnected from reality that I can not assume a realist perspective, I just can't embrace it.

7. Feb 2, 2007

### Francis M

Quote by Schrodingers Dog "Could Bush not veto this, would this veto be overturned?"

In the barest and simplest sense of how the U.S. Govt works yes; If this was proposed by Congress and passed through it could be vetoed by the President and dependant on whether there was a 2/3 majority the veto could be overturned.

But that's setting aside hosts of complex details and subtleties of how the branches interact with each other (linitations of powers, etc...), how things work within each branch, and as complexPhILOSEPHY said that's even taking into consideration that Congress will take this letter seriously!

Last edited: Feb 2, 2007
8. Feb 2, 2007

### complexPHILOSOPHY

All that is required is the 'barest and simplest' sense, correct? The procedure is clearly defined in the constitution, is it not? The only 'complicated sense' that I can imagine, is one where congress does not vote their parties lines, or are you considering something else?

I am interested in your thoughts.

9. Feb 2, 2007

### Schrodinger's Dog

I think that's implicit in his answer, and thanks to both of you for clearing it up for me.

10. Feb 2, 2007

### Andre

As the USA has signed the conventions of Geneve about war legislation, it has agreed against the use of excessive non-proportional force. it's rather unthinkable how a country without using nuclear wapens could create a situative in which the use of nuclear weapons was not to be considered non-proportional. So why would it be required to add additional rules.

Moreover the same legislation prohibits the attack against civilian targets and even if there was no legislation, nuclear weapons are highly impracticable, nothing to gain, using them.

11. Feb 2, 2007

### Schrodinger's Dog

Maybe they want to test whether GWB is sane or MAD or just mad. It's a leading question.

Last edited: Feb 3, 2007
12. Feb 2, 2007

### mathwonk

today's news on npr got my attention.

a think tank in DC tied to the whitehouse and enron offered 10K to any scientist who would write a critical article attacking the UN statement on global warming.

13. Feb 3, 2007

### Schrodinger's Dog

I'd pay 10m to any scientist who could figure out what planet GWB is from or living on.

14. Feb 3, 2007

### verty

Only 10K? Sounds to me like they don't think it'll work well. I think opinion is changing but as I say, change will occur when people start spending their money differently.

15. Feb 6, 2007

### franznietzsche

I'd pay $10 to a liberal whose opinions are intelligent and balanced enough that they don't make an entire forum post solely for the sake of an irrelevant ad hominem attack. Forget that, I'd pay$10 to any person who met that criteria. I'm sure I won't have to pay out soon.

Hmm, come to think of it, I think I just failed that criterion myself for making this entire post about saying you were being silly.

In other news, most retailers still have PS3s on their shelves.

There, now I meet my criteria. $10 to self 16. Feb 6, 2007 ### Schrodinger's Dog I'd pay$10 just to have you make that point so I could assert that it was a pointless thing to say in response to attacking George Bush, the man deserves it.:tongue2: Intelligent and balanced, someone who takes offense at me attacking possibly the worst president in US history? Don't make me laugh :rofl: I'm having my intelligence questioned by a Bush supporter. Now that's rich.

Last edited: Feb 6, 2007
17. Feb 6, 2007

### ptabor

... ok.

Not that I have any real love of GW, but to play the devil's advocate here I'm going to ask that you substantiate your claim that he is possibly one of the worst presidents in US history.

What is your standard here? The war in iraq? The economy? His faith based initiatives? The rampant budget deficit?

My problem is that the liberals are too blind with their hatred of GW to be taken seriously. Yes, the country will be better off once he is out of office. Yes, he was a mediocre president. Is he the root of all evil and all that is wrong with this world? Not by a long shot.

18. Feb 6, 2007

### ptabor

Back to the topic at hand...

I applaud the proposal to take the nuclear option off the table.

Personally, I'd like to see a proposal banning the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons period.

19. Feb 6, 2007

### Schrodinger's Dog

I said possibly not is. And I know how touchy you Yanks are at mockery of your leader. Over here it's a national past time, I never have gotten this idol worship patriotism thing and probably never will. If I can't throw around obviously light hearted jokey comments without being taken to task every five minutes fine, but you guys really don't get British humour, either that or your atypical, I'm not sure which?

Even labour supporters - as rare as they are these days, being an underground culture - mock Tony Blair. it's just part of politics, Tony Blair probably thinks he's doing what's right and he knows satire comes with the job, that's what our newspaper industry was founded on, mockery of king and parliament. We are habitually mocking politicians it's part of our culture, watch the houses of parliament it's like watching a schoolyard argument sometimes, this is how it works, if you can't stand behind your argument you get mocked until you either back it up or are silenced under a hail of derision.

I think next time I'll put more smilies on it and sign post it.:tongue:

Last edited: Feb 6, 2007
20. Feb 6, 2007

### ptabor

You are absolutely correct, I don't get british humor. I'm most likely the minority on this, so don't worry.

Your first post was certainly light hearted, and in response franz was combative. I apologize for seizing upon the issue, it was off topic at any rate.

Also, I personally am not squeemish about mocking my leaders. I mock every president I have seen in my lifetime (Reagan through Bush jr).

Bush is from douchestania - may I have my \$10 mil?