Thanks for the ping!
I got on late, tonight, so I'll read the posts tomorrow.
By the way, I've been doing some reading about the (Congressional) Medal of Honor. I've seen in various places that the President awards the Medal of Honor in the name of Congress. There is no problem with the "separation of powers."
The Medal of Honor, established by joint resolution of Congress, 12 July 1862 (amended by Act of 9 July 1918 and Act of 25 July 1963) is awarded in the name of Congress to a person who, while a member of the Armed Services, distinguishes himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against any enemy of The United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which The United States is not a belligerent party....
And further down:
The President, in the name of Congress, has awarded more than 3,400 Medals of Honor to our nation's bravest Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen since the decoration's creation in 1861....
If we were to apply Judge Baird's formula for determining that Terri's Law is unconstitutional, by virtue of the separation of powers, can we just as easily say that the Congressional acts which established the Medal of Honor, are also unconstitutional?
Don't mind me, I'm just an amateur lawyer.
Please,......."Where is Mel Gibson?"