Let's say the President loses ~ then the burden of dealing with AlQaida links in the United States falls back on "the people", and I'll guarantee you that "the people" will not be as surgical or careful as the Executive.
The waging of a civil war in this country while we are trying to smash world terrorism really isn't as desirable an outcome as the Democrats think.
"The President has to win. The battle isn't really between the Executive and Congress; it's between individual private citizens and their need for personal security against TERRORISTS WHO WANT TO KILL THEM and the Democratic party".
Well said...
How serious do you think is this notion of civil war?
It caught me rather by extreme surprise.
The last time I listened to such a thought was back in the mid-seventies. An otherwise bright, wannabe radical student was prepared, he claimed, to go to the barricades. He didn't. And, the world went on about its business.
With all due respect, at the moment, the contest is between Congress and the President. Obviously, it is largely partisan politics at work, but the present and future stakes are constitutional. Once that's resolved, well, once upon a time our forefathers did claim a right to revolution.
There is this nasty thing about rights, though. They only exist when you can assert them, and then you must accept the consequences of a probable denial of that particular right.
I, for one, would do everything possible to deny that right.