"Point being, if you attack one over-reach, if you're sincere, you need to attack them all."
That is a point well taken.
"Otherwise, don't use the soldiers as fodder for your argument."
I wasn't using the solders as "fodder." I respect their sacrifice and believe what I said. I don't want to get into an argument with other Freepers, and I say this as a person who has called and emailed lawmakers to try to save Terri. If I am wrong about the President not having the authority to step in, I will admit it and be just as disgusted with him as the rest of you.
Although your 5th Amendment argument is one I'd like to research, EA, I sincerely don't believe the President had the authority to prevent a binding court order from being carried out, as repulsive as that order was.
Those who point to Eisenhower's use of troops in Alabama are missing a key difference--there, the troops were enforcing a federal court integration order.
Here, there is no federal order to enforce. GW would merely be stepping in because he didn't like the outcome of a county court case.
And that is a precedent I find very disturbing. Can you imagine a President Hillary stepping in to change the outcome of county court decisions she didn't like?
I have to log off now, but take care, both of you, on this very sad day.
Your points are logical, I agree. But when there's a leak in the boat, someone'd better grab a bucket. We can't stand around saying, "Well, that's how the boat was built, we have to let it sink."
That aside, you too. Have a good day. It's been a long two weeks.
What do you call the bill passed by Congress and signed by the President? Macaroni?
There is a more important difference:
In this case, an innocent American citizen was killed barbarically by her own government.