Please. If you're going to argue a position, argue it, but refrain from attacks ad hominem. Nothing I said was hypocritical. In fact, I left it quite open, as a question: "Is Bush justified?" and pointed out that a great many legal minds are arguing that question. I professed my opinion that Bush has exceeded his executive powers, but I also qualified that position by clearly stating that I am not in a position to seriously argue that point at any depth. Maybe you are: I don't know your qualifications in terms of Constitutional law. But I never made any such claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
Where did I say this? Nowhere. I said no such thing. Please, read what I wrote before you launch an attack against a position which I did not take. I did not state that the Constitution "means exactly what it says." Please do no put words in my mouth. I simply pointed out that Bush has taken far more exceptions to Congressional legislation than any President before him, and that in some eyes--including mine--that challenges the tripartite balance of Federal powers.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
I don't deny and didn't deny any of this. Of course prior Presidents have done so. My point here is that no previous President has come within shouting distance of Bush in terms of his stance regarding his interpretation of the law, even during the signing statement (which is, as Goldsmith points out, merely a "public notice" about said interpretation). Prior Presidents were extremely selective in this regard, as opposed to Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
That's it, I have been insulted one too many times. I don't know why you are picking a fight or being deliberately demeaning, but I see no point in pursuing this discussion any further. Have a good life.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
