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 (152019)	12/20/2005 4:40:08 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794309

Well, one is a legal argument - what is permissible. The other is policy - what should be done. Hillary would take a tack not too much unlike Bush, IMO. Teddy and Dean would almost certainly decline to use the full powers of the Presidency at war. Heck, they'd probably deny we are at war. When it comes to constitutional law, principles is all ya got. It's all principle, all the time. When the President has war powers authorization of the Congress, he is at his maximal constitutional power. After Vietnam, all sorts of restrictions were put in place that do more harm than good. You have to remember that those restrictions are only 30 years old, and a knee-jerk reaction to both Nixon and Vietnam. Derek

To: Lane3 who wrote (152019)	12/20/2005 4:40:08 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794309

What's the principle at stake? From what I read it's been challenged in other administrations and courts have ruled it's within the President's powers.