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: Lane3 who wrote (151861)	12/19/2005 8:31:26 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793568

If you heard the President describe what was done and how it was done. The question is does it sound like "president can unilaterally do whatever he damn well pleases." Other than some issue of a technical interpretation of the law, is there any common sense objection to what the President is doing. The President has a process and there is review with courts and Congress is advised. So civil libertarians who are quoting "statutory" authority are doing the ivory tower thing. The President seems to be doing a reasonable and rational interpretation of his oath to defend Americans.

To: Lane3 who wrote (151861)	12/19/2005 8:54:08 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793568

The Dems are quite clear in stating that congress never passed laws giving the Prez authority. That's the "statutory." Byron York laid out the reason that Bush went this way. The court setup is too slow. They need to be able to move on a dime. Message 21987341 Bush made a judgement after 911 that this was important enough to do this way. I agree with him. You may not. It's a matter of how much risk you think we are subject too.