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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (270040)	2/8/2006 9:41:54 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572659

Is that what he was doing when he said that the president has the right to declare war Find me where he said that. A liberal source will be fine as long as it provides a full quote with reasonable context. He may have said the president has the power to order troops in to battle. That is not the same as the power to declare war. The president has powers as commander in chief. The exact extent of those powers is one of the truely grey areas of the constitution. Not only is it not completely clear from the words of the constitution, but the Supreme Court has not ruled on it. Presidents and those who serve them, have traditionally taken a much more expansive view of the powers of commander and chief than the congress has. This isn't a Bush thing, or a Republican thing. Democratic presidents have held the same opinion. Even while they may have asked for authorization for use of force (which Bush did get BTW) they have not stated that they actually require this authorization and at times have explicitly said that they do not. Maybe that interpretation is incorrect. You probably think it is. I'm not 100% certain about it. But it isn't new or unusual or ridiculous. Tim