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: Ilaine who wrote (132278)	8/13/2005 7:37:17 PM
From: arno	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793791

it's a matter of degree...and i'm sure you know this. the perception of the populace, as a whole, would have to be that it is justifiable to maintain order. something like 9/11??? Nah... nukes in seattle, LA, NY, and Miami....i'd say so. but we won't know until it happens...if it does.

To: Ilaine who wrote (132278)	8/13/2005 7:42:40 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793791

How can you talk about what the President can do "in the event of a terrorist attack" without recognizing that we've already had a terrorist attack? You're trying to drag the conversation into some fantasy land where the President imposes permanent Executive Emergency Law. Not what is being proposed. Can the President do that? Yes - upon suspension of habeas corpus by Congress. Lincoln did it. Roosevelt and Congress exercised broad, extraordinary powers over every facet of American life during WWII. Is it within the President's or Congress's discretion as to when a war or emergency situation stops? In large part - War Powers extend to duration of hostilities and their secondary effects. Look at the Rent and Steel Seizure cases. Are we talking about that? No. Has anyone suggested that 9/11 presented such an emergency situation? No. Could such an emergency situation occur? Yes. Derek