Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: lugsoul

You said: If you don't want Hillary, or someone like her, to have unfettered surveillance capability, then you shouldn't be complacent about this President having it.
***

The problem with this sort of analysis is that most people wouldn't want Hillary to have ANY power, which would support a constitutional amendment eliminating the presidential powers now possessed. How about looking at it from the other end of the barrel-- With what sort of person should we entrust these wide-ranging powers? Not Hillary, not a dem of any kind, save perhaps Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman.


89 posted on 12/29/2005 11:23:24 AM PST by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: NCLaw441
"With what sort of person should we entrust these wide-ranging powers?"

No one. The way the Founders intended.

98 posted on 12/29/2005 11:34:26 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson