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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (107036)	3/31/2005 11:02:24 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793677

Karen, I don't see the similarity between Bush and Eisenhower. In fact, it's the exact opposite. Eisenhower sent in troops to ENFORCE a court order. Bush would have been using force to CONTRAVENE a court order. And today is Thursday, not Tuesday. And that matters why? Each branch of government has the obligation to fulfill its mandate to the fullest extent of the law. The Executive is not subordinate to the Legislature nor to the Judiciary, and vice versa. If the judiciary is wrong, then the Executive has no obligation to follow it. Especially because, in this case, the initial petition for relief pursuant to federal law has yet to be filed. All that was filed was a motion for a TRO pending the outcome of the litigation. You may not like this, but Terri's Law, as passed by Congress the Monday after Palm Sunday, is the law of the land, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Every element of government in the entire USA is obligated to obey that law. No exceptions. Jeb Bush should have obeyed Congress, and he should have done everything within his power to make sure that Congress was obeyed. And so should his brother. If you don't like it, try to get the Constitution amended. I doubt very much that you will prevail.