karlrschneider
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-23-05 09:58 PM
Original message |
Isn't the IWR clearly unconstitutional? Why has nobody challenged it in |
|
Edited on Sun Oct-23-05 10:07 PM by karlrschneider
Federal court? I'm sure this question has been asked but I don't remember ever seeing a rational answer. :eyes: edit: Iraq War Resolution....sorry
|
silverweb
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-23-05 09:59 PM
Response to Original message |
shraby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-23-05 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
silverweb
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-23-05 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
Thanks!
:hi:
When acronyms are used without any context, I'm often quickly lost. :D
|
funflower
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-23-05 10:03 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Presidential war powers is a rather unsettled area of Constitutional law, |
|
I think. For a half-century, presidents have pretty much chosen to do what they want to and dared Congress to stop them.
I don't think right now would be the best time to try for a ruling from the SCOTUS on that.
|
karlrschneider
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-23-05 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. You're right of course but dammit someone has to -try-.... |
funflower
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-23-05 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
10. I'd worry about what this Court would do on that subject. |
|
Let's see how they handle the Guantanamo gulag....
|
Silverhair
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-23-05 10:05 PM
Response to Original message |
5. And what court would rule on that? |
|
SCOTUS, right. The same SCOTUS that installed W in 2000, and is now even further right, is going to declare the IWR unconstitutional?
Tell me what you have been drinking.
|
karlrschneider
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-23-05 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
:D Remember the same court killed the TX sodomy laws. Impossible to know what they would do in any given case.
|
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-23-05 10:06 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Dems have to admit they were duped before they |
|
challenge anything. Then a dialogue can begin.
|
funflower
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-23-05 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
11. Duped my eye. Dems were complicit - at least a lot of them. |
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-23-05 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
12. If Colin Powell insinuates he was duped, I think it |
|
happened to many people on both sides of the aisle. It would be nice to know the truth either way.
|
funflower
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-23-05 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
13. Well, I wasn't duped. I could see it from 3,000 miles. Hard to believe |
|
Edited on Sun Oct-23-05 10:58 PM by funflower
these career inside-the-beltwayers really believed that pack of lies. It seems to me they went along to get along and now they're jumping ship like rats on the Titanic. Seems to me that most of them are doing whatever works at the time.....
And I'm not duped by them, either.
:nopity:
|
charlie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-23-05 10:13 PM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:07 PM
Response to Original message |