Replies

Oh my. Quite a debate! Just a few odds and ends here:

I read and post here, among other reasons, because I believe the folks here TRULY appreciate the idea of civil liberties. I'm just skimming here, but my newest thoughts and opinions, for what they're worth, include the following -

Any time I hear a story critical about Bush, my first instinct is to discount it, or wait for the rebuttal to the MSM. There have been so many such stories already. But there is a principle here also. Understood! If President Bush's actions are not defensible under the Constitution, then that is the most serious matter. No doubt. But I am also hearing and reading, from very respectable sources, that Bush's actions, while not following the specific statute cited, are an exercise of recognized constitutional power and have been exercised frequently in the past. In other words, the statutory procedure is not exclusive and possibly unconstitutional if it was meant to be, as it would be an attempted congressional limit to such Constitutional presidential power. Again, that's the argument - perhaps neither the facts nor the law is clear at this point. Or maybe I am speaking from ignorance, something I have never denied doing. :)

I can appreciate a "principled" objection from people I otherwise respect (that excludes the NYT and the usual suspects). We SHOULD be setting forth rules that we would be willing to live under with a Democrat president in office. One of the reasons I became a Republican later in life (like Zell Miller, Democrat party membership was almost a genetic imperative in my family) is because of the rule of law. If a Democrat is elected, it will mean that (1) we will not have done our job and (2) we will have to live with it. Part of the problem with Hillary Clinton is that virtually no one on this site thinks she would obey ANY laws, and we also probably think, by and large, that she would be given cover by large segments of the MSM in any event. That's my opinion, anyway. So if I would not be willing to give any power to Bush that I were not willing to give to her, the presidency would be terribly weak indeed. We have to separate the analysis from the "Hillary" factor. (My comments are not directed to anyone in particular, just the board.)

Anyway, I took one last look at this thread although I gave up earlier based on misunderstood responses, etc. Sometimes I don't try to find the answers, just spot the questions. I try to be polite to a fault here as I believe again that there are generally like-minded and intelligent people here. I save the flame wars for the times I venture onto other sites . . .