Posted on 02/06/2006 6:08:53 AM PST by ken5050
Good Monday morning, once again, fellow political jinkies. The NFL season may be over, but the political season inside the Beltway is 24/7/365. So join us, if you can, as those wacky Dems on the Senate Judiciary committee reprise their pitiful efforts to once again smear President Bush and score political points..
Even the Ringling Bros, Barnum and Bailey, has to end sometime.
Enjoying yourself? :-)
Oh look he's reading his KOS diary.
Feingold giving one of his planned stump speeches in 2008,,,,BARF!!!
OOPS sorry, didn't realize hip had made that comment.
BTW...Feingold just said that Graham, DeWine, and BROWNBACK have all agreed with the dems that Bush DID NOT have the authorization under the "war act" that was voted on???
Feingold is just nasty!
Yep. After Hayden rips their collective @$$&$ off and hands their @$$&$ back to them on silver platters behind closed doors, the Democrats will run teary-eyed toward the nearest camera and microphone and say that Hayden was a hostile witness.
Feingold is using Air America talking points ---"pre1776"
I'd like him to convert so he's not a part of my religion anymore
Who Montgomery Burns?
Is he implying that Gonzales might lie?
Feingold is an pompous horse's rear.
Me, too!
Gonzales: The Chair asked my views about being sworn in and I said I had no objection.
Specter: No one asked me from the administration not to swear in Gonzales.
Lindsey Graham?
probably why I'm still smiling...
"The Founders in their wisdom made [the President] not only the Commander-in-Chief but also the guiding organ in the conduct of our foreign affairs," possessing "vast powers in relation to the outside world." Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 173 (1948). Foreign affairs power the “exclusive power of the President as sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations - a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress." United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936).
Protecting the national security is also Presidential domain. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 812 n.19 (1982). The President's constitutional primacy flows from both his unique position in the constitutional structure, and from the specific grants of authority in Article II that make the President both the Chief Executive of the Nation and the Commander in Chief. See Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749-50 (1982). As Hamilton explained: "the circumstances which may affect the public safety are [not] reducible within certain determinate limits, . . . it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community in any matter essential to its efficiency."
”The command and application of the public force . . . to maintain peace, and to resist foreign invasion" are executive powers. Application of Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 12 (1946). The authority to protect national security is NOT limited to actions necessary for "victories in the field." Id. The authority over national security "carries with it the inherent power to guard against the immediate renewal of the conflict." Id.
The President “has broad discretion in determining when the public emergency is such as to give rise to the necessity" for emergency measures. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. at 336. "[T]he President has independent authority to repel aggressive acts by third parties even without specific statutory authorization." Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 The Constitution gives the power to the President “to preserve order and insure the public safety . . . . when other branches of the government . . . functioning would itself threaten the public safety." Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 335 (1946) (Stone, C.J., concurring).
The courts have affirmed it is President’s constitutional responsibility to respond to that threat with whatever means are necessary. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 67 U.S. at 635.
The Supreme Court has made clear that it will not construe legislative powers so as to prevent the President "from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions." Nixon v. Administrator of General Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 443 (1977).
Feingold makes me want to spit nails, but the AG is doing well against him.
He needs to brush up on his history .. cause he doesn't have a clue
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.