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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (198425)	8/21/2006 6:57:12 PM
From: kumar	Respond to of 281500

could be valid if u accepted that the legislative branch also did not excercise its powers, and therefor the judicial branch had nothing to interpret. This for sure is not a "1 man gambit".

To: Sam who wrote (198425)	8/21/2006 7:00:56 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 281500

Actually I was talking about signing statements, I wasn't, but the signing statements are related to the extent that they are statements about or relating to the presidents constitutional powers. (Something like "this bill shall not be interpreted to infringe on the constitutional power of the executive to...) Personally I think if the president thinks a law is unconstitutional the proper thing for him to do would be to veto it, rather than to sign it with some statement about how parts of it might be unconstitutional. but the surveillance activities, his methods of detaining people without charges or access to attorneys, and the way various detainees have been treated all are plausible ways in which the Bush admin has overstepped the bounds of executive power. The surveillance activities are an open question. Detaining people captured in war without access to attorneys is the norm. You didn't see Nazi POWs hiring lawyers. As for the treatment of detainees - Some of that is from people not acting according to policy. For actions that where authorized, I think Bush should respect the clear limits of the law in this area, where such clear limits, or even such laws exist. The law itself is somewhat fuzzy in some cases, but Bush does seem to want to push to the limits, and some might argue beyond.