Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: foundation who wrote (5770)	2/13/2003 5:36:00 PM
From: DWB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12246

My aren't we emotional... Congressional record... thomas.loc.gov You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to Why would a NY Times headline mean doodley squat, unless they were expounding on the fact that some minority soldiers aren't proportionally represented in the military, or some similar drivel? Contrary to your opinion, there is no "unstated" requirement for the heading on the resolution to use any particular wording from the english language. Everyone who voted on the bill knows what it means, except for the Democrats who now want to back out of it. Don't forget those police actions in Haiti, and Bosnia, and a few other places... Can't recall seeing any resolutions with the words WAR in them for those... Why weren't the same democratic congressman up in arms then???? Congress wanted to vote on war with Iraq. They did... the rest is just semantics.

To: foundation who wrote (5770)	2/14/2003 10:32:16 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 12246

I looked at the issue from a legal perspective a while back, concluding that quite possibly Congress has delegated its war-making powers unconstitutionally, but that there are lots of valid legal arguments that can be made for the contrary position. It's definitely not a black or white issue. On balance, trying to be completely objective, I think that you are probably correct, there are substantial Constitutional problems in the way the War Powers Act allows the President to make war, the rolling authorizations notwithstanding. From a practical standpoint, however, there is no Court in the US--certainly not the Supreme Court and that is where the issue would end up--that is going to precipitate a huge Constitutional crisis in the middle of a potential national security emergency by ordering that Congress formally declare war on Iraq as a condition to the invasion. It's not going to happen, no matter how strong the legal argument may be. In the event, Congress is likely to vote in favor of Bush's plans, something the Supreme Court would take into consideration in making a decision but never, ever formally mention. I think Q should drop a few loads of CDMA phones for use by the Iraqi military and civilians, set up aerial networks, have someone put the finger on Saddam's whereabouts via cell phone messages to a pre-located Special Ops team that can proceed to blow the bloody fucker's head off with a minimum of fuss. The Q's price would go up significantly, the price of oil would go down, and I would go ahead and buy that new Infiniti Q45 I've been lusting after.