Yes, as a politician, she was speaking to the dumbass voters. However, Bush said "You are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
April 29, 2000 | GOP presidential hopeful Alan Keyes showed much promise as an orator during the primary season debates but has stumbled (semantically, at least) over Elián. Appearing on Fox News Channel's "Hannity and Colmes," Keyes ignored New York Post columnist John Podhoretz's plea to avoid Holocaust references by comparing Janet Reno's raid on Little Miami to "Gestapo thuggery." http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/04/29/soundbite/index.html
There was nothing unreasonable about Judge Taylor's ruling. She merely found that the AUMF does not expressly authorize the President to use "all necessary force" to determine who committed the 911 attacks, but rather that it only permits the President to use all necessary force "after" he determines who committed the terrorist attacks. This is a completely rational legal finding. The President was empowered to make war on the enemy, not to dump the entire Constitution in order to discover who the enemy is. This is not to say that the President may not need more authority or that the circumstances do not merit the sort of surveillance that the President has authorized. It only says that the President should be asking for the authority, not simply usurping and then challenging the other branches of government to stop him. Because, by issuing this tacit challenge, someone, like the ACLU, is bound to use the judicial branch to take the President up on his challenge. And, so here we are, with a difficult court decision, that half of the country hates and the other half loves. If our President were a little better leader, we would not have the challenge. But, George seems to have self esteem problems which apparently require him to strut his stuff, rather than work with the Congress. This is a huge waste of taxpayer money and it unnecessarily divides the nation. Bad leadership -- pure and simple. Meanwhile, the enemy continues to evade us in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Gosh. I'd never known my good friend the Ambassador (and running mate in Illinois) to use such over the top imagery.
I dispute that "half the country" loves this district court judge's ruling. Most reasonable voters understand that the president has inherent authority to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists who contact people here. They want the government to do more, not less, to keep us safe. The Democrats fully understand this, which is why they resorted to the courts. Let some nutcase judge discover some previously unheard of constitutional "right" to talk with terrorists. That way, they can undermine Bush and not have to answer to the voters.
There's no difference in Constitutionality if the initiative is mere policy from the Admin or a law passed by Congress. The Supreme Court struck down portions of the enacted Patriot Act. Perhaps a lawyer can pipe in here but I don't see a President asking the court for a preemptive ruling. I'm not even sure if it can be done. A ruling is systematic of a filed complaint. If lawmakers could consult judges and if ALL judges were in legal agreement, then we'd NEVER have an "unconstitutional" law.
Z: Many Republicans are racist, fact. Z: I said SOME republicans are racist, a simple fact. TM: In other words...Your now backing off your earlier assertions because they are patently false and misleading Z: Not at all. What a tool.
Since Z asserts many republicans are racist, I want to know how he defines "many". What percentage of group is required for the "many" label Z?? Hmmmmmmmmmm??????????
Most "reasonable" voters can't balance their checkbook, much less understand a concept like inherent executive authority. As far as the constitutional right to talk to a terrorist is concerned, constitutional "rights" are not impacted by the ruling. There is a statute, and it expresses certain requirements for a warrantless wiretap related to foreign surveillance, which the President has ignored. So, the Constitutional issue is not over a right to privacy, but rather it is simply the question of whether or not the President must obey a lawful statute of the United States. I say that he does. You may say that the President has "inherent authority" to ignore any statute passed by Congress that impairs the President's authority as commander in chief. This is the question that the Supreme Court must now answer: what is the scope of authority in this case? Is it boundless, regardless of the FISA or the AUMF, or is it constrained by those Acts of Congress. It is well-established that a law, even if later found unconstitutional, must be obeyed until struck down. Under this framework, the President, without express authority under the AUMF to violate the FISA, is in violation of the Act, by wiretapping "United States Persons." So, if you honor the law of the land, then the President should be indicted for the felony violation, and he can then challenge the law on a motion for declaratory relief, prior to trial. But, of course, none of this can happen, because it is also well established that the President is immune from criminal or civil prosecution until after he is impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate. What is left, then, is for some outside third party to find a judicial means of challenging the President's actions. As usual, the ACLU steps in to fill this niche and tries to find constitutional standing to sue. Judge Taylor found standing and found the President to have violated the law. Now there will be an appeal and eventually the USSC will issue a decision. Whatever they rule will be the precedent. NONE of the above, even remotely suggests that the Judge is a "nutcase," and when someone as apparently intelligent as you are, uses this sort of epithet against a sitting judge, you are showing your personal disrespect for for our nation's laws and legal process. You apparently enjoy having a leader who is equally contemptuous of our Constitution. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. But, neither is it something to wipe one's Presidential ass with.