[Darkwolf377]

Before I go on, I must first say that I agree with your post.

BUT...is it possible we're too confident about this?

Are we missing something here that could spell doom for W?

My answer would be "Nope," but the dominant theme in the "experts" I'm reading is that there's nothing to STOP W from doing this, not that it's legal.

I'm looking for arguments that are anti-W, so we can be ready for when (not if) the Dummies try to destroy him with them. Anyone?

[Adrastus]

Ah, Devils advocate. I see what you mean. I have a hard time playing chess with my grandson, not because he's unpredictable. My problem is that I sometimes "outsmart myself", as my Grandpa used to say. In fact he becomes so predictable sometimes that I find that I'm saying to myself, "What am I missing here?" and wind up playing a better game for him than he does. (Is this making sense? It's really late here.) I find that just watching and letting him play his game is far easier than trying to predict his second and third move out.

Now my grandson is a helluva lot smarter than a whole cohort of dems, so I think let them play their game. Besides all that, it's vastly amusing to see what imbecility is coming next. Sort of like the Marx Brothers.

[lepton]

My answer would be "Nope," but the dominant theme in the "experts" I'm reading is that there's nothing to STOP W from doing this, not that it's legal.

The Constitution authorizes the President to conduct foreign policy. This is foreign policy. No law (Constitutional or not) prevents his office from this. It is therefore legal.