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

Skip to comments.

Go Directly to Jail
New Republic ^ | 19 jun 02 | Akhil Reed Amar

Posted on 06/19/2002 7:08:30 AM PDT by white trash redneck

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last
To: AppyPappy; allend
AP: "Screw the terrorist. This is war."

Allend: "a suspected terrorist is anyone they want to call a suspected terrorist."

AP: "Except that it doesn't. I guess pro-lifers knocked down the World Trade Center."

Senator Ted Kennedy: "Hate Crimes are terrorist acts. They are modern-day lynchings designed to intimidate and terrorize whole communities" LINK

21 posted on 06/19/2002 11:32:00 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Except that Ted Kennedy is not the law.
22 posted on 06/19/2002 11:39:28 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: freeeee
Except that Ted Kennedy is not the law.

Nah, he just makes them. Big difference, I don't know how I could have missed that one. You're absolutely right. Senators have nothing to do with laws. Silly me.

24 posted on 06/19/2002 11:43:41 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
AppyPappy said: "Actually, Koresh was accused of having/disributing an illegal firearm, not just a firearm. A person who is arrested for stealing cars is not the same as a person who owns a car."

And the NRA was vilified for giving aid and comfort to terrorist bombers, not just exercising free speech. The only way that the government can declare a firearm illegal is to infringe the right to keep and bear it.

25 posted on 06/19/2002 1:50:58 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
I believe strongly that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. But in the 24 years that it has been effect, the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined opportunies to examine it. Until it is struck down, or repealed, it remains the law and has certain consequences.

Under the WPA, the President has the right to take actions which are "acts of war" even before Congress acts. That is what I find highly dubious. However, once Congress acts under the WPA, it is the same as if it had passed a free-standing "Declaration of War." As the Constitution requires, Congres has then spoken, and the power to carry out a war has moved from Congress to the President, who is the Commander-in-Chief.

With regard to the War on Terrorism, Congress DID speak, on 18 September 2002. There is no question of the constitutional ability of President Bush to conduct acts of war now, against terrorists and supporting nations, wherever he chooses.

Your post raises the question of what happens when Congress withdraws its authority. That is no different under the WPA than under a standard Declaration of War, as in WW II. If Congress, at any time and for any reason, withdraws its permission for the President to conduct war, that ends the US participation in that war, on the spot. Such a thing has never happened in US history, but it is possible, and that would be the constitutional result.

Hope this is useful to you.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest: "This Column is About Nothing."

26 posted on 06/23/2002 8:23:09 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last

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.

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