SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : THE WHITE HOUSE
SPY 689.510.0%Jan 8 4:00 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (5593)6/12/2007 5:13:21 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) of 25737
 
Re: "I don't get your objection. It isn't relevant to the points that where under discussion."

That's what *I said* about your post. <ggg>

When you were quoting about the federal judge's ruling, his statement [saying: presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians,” Judge Motz wrote, “even if the president calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country.”] I couldn't see what in the Hell any of that had to do with the topic we were talking about --- the modern Dem/Rep political party duopoly.

That's why I said 'I don't get your first point.' You lead off with a statement relating to a federal judge's interpretation of the US Constitution, relating to the limits on the power of the Executive branch.

What does our constitutionally protected design of government, which counter-balances governmental powers between Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches... have to do with 'two political parties'?

(Nothing, said I.)

Re: "Parties are not mentioned in the Constitution."

Again... you are just repeating WHAT I SAID. HERE is where I said that in my post: (I can assure you... that latter is not even mentioned in the constitution. :-)
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext