Well, I am glad to hear you defend the racist Chief Justice Taney. Taney was a despicable Democrat who, in Dred Scott decision, enacted the most egregious case of judicial activism. His decision nullified the previous Congressional decisions that might have led to the gradual elimination of slavery. Great Britian managed to outlaw slavery without a civil war. Thanks to that bastard, a civil war became inevitable. So if you list him as a “credible source” - be sure what sort of monster you are embracing.
Taney, like the 7 justices in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, are not god-like persons capable of deciding from a Mt. Olympus position, what should and should not be law, crafting decisions to achieve a desired result - making law, rather than following the Constitution. They all deserve to rot in hell for judicial activism that has cost this country (a civil war in 1861) and innocent individuals (40 million babies aborted) so much!
Accusing Lincoln of being a tyrant because Lincoln opposed Taney - a man who supported the dissolution of the nation seems to be a bit strange . . . unless you also felt that the south had a moral and legal right to do what ever it took to ensure their right to continue enslaving men. (Yes, there might have been other reasons for the south to want to separate from the union - but if they had recognized the immorality of enslaving men, freed the slaves - and then tried to separate from the Union because of “northern oppressive tariffs, etc., the north would have never supported a war, and the south would have been successful in either eliminating the oppressive tariffs, or they would have been able to separate and pull out of the U.S. without the same risk of war.
Royce Lambert, in his OPINION - is swaying into areas where he will handicap our country, seeing a risk that isn’t a risk, while allowing more serious problems to occur. And I wouldn’t have any problems with any Democrat President exercising the SAME power ... and would be upset if they failed to exercise due diligence in gathering intelligence to prevent future attacks on this country.
And the Congressional authorization for the global war on terror didn’t specify Al Qaeda, because there are other organizations that support A.Q. and also need to be targeted. (The Phillipine Islamic terrorist group needs to be targeted, even though it goes by a different name; they were working with Khalid Sheik Mohammed on Operation Bojinka, a plot to blow up over 10 airplanes.) What if A.Q. changed their name - would the Congressional resolution then require the war to end and the President to get a new C.R. to go after a new organization? Totally ridiculous suggestion.
Mike
You don't hear well.
So if you list him as a “credible source”
I didn't.
Here's a link to the US Constitution. Mosey on over there and give it a read. Do take your time.
Since it's obvious you've never actually done it, I'll give you some time. I'll add extra time as I assume you'll most likely need to run your fingers across the screen and move your lips while you do it.
Once you finish up that little chore, get back to me with the answer to this question.
Does the US Constitution give the President the power to suspend Habeus Corpus?
A simple 'yes' or 'no' is all that's required.
And I wouldn’t have any problems with any Democrat President exercising the SAME power
Then you're an even bigger fool than I thought.
L