Democrat party ideas...

[Plasmaball]

I keep hearing that Reagan won the cold war. Anyone care to tell me what, exactly, he did to win it?

spent money

 

[Fagin]

I keep hearing that Reagan won the cold war. Anyone care to tell me what, exactly, he did to win it?

He pushed the stakes higher than the Soviets could match/exceed.

 

[zipman]

Gahh....I'm not finding it. I might well be wrong, but I would have sworn the provision existed. Conceded.

First off, thank you.

Secondly, I want to clarify that I'm still not saying that he definitely deserves censure. I think it is a valid question that should be asked for the following reason; the concept of due process is a very important aspect of every american's rights.

If this power does exist under the authorization of use of force my concern is when does this "extended power" end? The WOT is different from any other war in that there is no enemy to sign a surrender.

It would be the same as if we extended powers to the War on drugs. These are "wars" with no end in sight. That is my concern and it has far less to do with this being GWB who did it as it is about the checks and balances of our government.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Gringao]

spent money

In the proper manner, it should be noted.

 

[Gringao]

First off, thank you.

Secondly, I want to clarify that I'm still not saying that he definitely deserves censure. I think it is a valid question that should be asked for the following reason; the concept of due process is a very important aspect of every american's rights.

If this power does exist under the authorization of use of force my concern is when does this "extended power" end? The WOT is different from any other war in that there is no enemy to sign a surrender.

It would be the same as if we extended powers to the War on drugs. These are "wars" with no end in sight. That is my concern and it has far less to do with this being GWB who did it as it is about the checks and balances of our government.

I think there's statutory power conferred by the AUOF, but there's a fair body of constitutional law that says that the President has the authority even absent an authorizing statute.

And don't get me started on the War on Drugs. Talk about spending money on useless shit...

 

[Sean]

In the proper manner, it should be noted.

Am I to assume that he spent trillions on defence?

 

[Gringao]

Am I to assume that he spent trillions on defence?

Over the eight years he was in office, probably, though I'd have to check the numbers to see. How much that was over and above what the expenditures would have been given some other, imaginary, government of doves is anyone's guess.

 

[RobDownSouth]

...The president has inherent powers under the Constitution during war time...

I was with ya up until the "during war time" bit.

Care to elaborate on how the President's Constitutional powers differ in war and peace?

 

[Fagin]

Am I to assume that he spent trillions on defence?

about $1.6 trillion over his first five years in the rebuilding of the US military

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's just that duriing war time, he and he alone is the Commander in Chief. He doesn't have to take guidance, advice, or instruction from anyone on how to protect the nation or command the armed forces. Courts in the past have given presidents very broad power in this area. Should we be concerned? Yes.

I wasn't aware that there was any delination of powers for the Commander In Chief in peacetime, but I'll take your word for it.

In any event, I think all but the most obtuse would agree that the president's wartime powers do not include violating the constitutional rights of American citizens. History looks askance at wholesale power grabs like suspending habeas corpus (Lincoln) and interning the Japanese (FDR).

I suspect that Bush's FISA folly will soon join that infamous list.

 

[bill-pix-trade]

I wasn't aware that there was any delination of powers for the Commander In Chief in peacetime, but I'll take your word for it.

In any event, I think all but the most obtuse would agree that the president's wartime powers do not include violating the constitutional rights of American citizens. History looks askance at wholesale power grabs like suspending habeas corpus (Lincoln) and interning the Japanese (FDR).

I suspect that Bush's FISA folly will soon join that infamous list.

I really tend to doubt it. There are two few victims to point to.

 

[Gringao]

I really tend to doubt it. There are two few victims to point to.

And it might lead to uncomfortable questions like, "Why were your name and phone number on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Blackberry?"

 

[bill-pix-trade]

And it might lead to uncomfortable questions like, "Why were your name and phone number on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Blackberry?"

Ah hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Ishmael]

Yeah Zip, a lot of people think a lot of things. Mostly wrong, but they can think them anyway.

Bush's position is simple. The law Carter signed is unconstitutional. It is a legislative infringement on executive powers. Some members of congress think otherwise.

The issue can only be resolved by bringing it before the SCOTUS. Given the body of law and precedent in the lower courts the odds are ALL in Bush's favor. Feingold know's this as well as I do so this little charade he's pulling is pap for the uninformed masses. An attempt to render a censure before the courts have spoken. It's more or less like hanging the man before the trial.

Ishmael

 

[unregistered]