Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (152019)	12/20/2005 4:40:08 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) of 793613

Well, one is a legal argument - what is permissible. The other is policy - what should be done. Hillary would take a tack not too much unlike Bush, IMO. Teddy and Dean would almost certainly decline to use the full powers of the Presidency at war. Heck, they'd probably deny we are at war. When it comes to constitutional law, principles is all ya got. It's all principle, all the time. When the President has war powers authorization of the Congress, he is at his maximal constitutional power. After Vietnam, all sorts of restrictions were put in place that do more harm than good. You have to remember that those restrictions are only 30 years old, and a knee-jerk reaction to both Nixon and Vietnam. Derek

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next