Of course. A dispute that attorneys can't argue both sides of is rare indeed. But it should not escape notice that one side of the debate is focusing on the actual language of the Constitution and statutes while the other is talking about inherent powers and authorization which is implied, not stated, in the AUMF.
Fun to watch self-described conservatives cozying up to activist interpretations of law.
176 posted on 12/22/2005 3:41:08 PM PST by lugsoul
("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)