prosecute torturers!

[bl825]

what, with truman?  how unimaginative.  and he only get precedent that limit presidential power.

of course, preznit actually have care about what limits are.

No, with Steel Seizure.

And if he doesn't care, somebody should be able to do something about it.

[Julie Fern]

they can, but you should know it involve discussing constitution.  can handle that?

as to gump, democrats afraid impeach, so they wait until next election.  and gop wrecked and getting worse.  hooray!

[bl825]

You'd be surprised.

I'm not sure why I'm catching so much flak about saying don't go constitutional at first.  Narrowest possible grounds and all that, no?

[Julie Fern]

two reasons:  you fixated on this part of it, and you wrong.

[bl825]

two reasons:  you fixated on this part of it, and you wrong.

What exactly am I wrong about?

And I do have trouble letting things go. 

[goaliechica]

So you agree with me when I say that the reason the whole Constitutional argument is in play is the fact that the administration brought it out?

not exactly.  constitutional issues always center defining limits of presidential power, although this usually come up with presidents who--for whatever reason--push those limits (most notably jackson, lincoln, both roosevelts, nixon, gump).

again:  laws become focus when we disagree on morals.

But we wouldn't have to discuss the constitutional issues if the president had not tried to push the limits of his power, right?  It would just be, there's a statute against torture and that's that.  Yes there's a constitutional argument behind the statute existing, but we wouldn't have to discuss it, right?

And I can't believe you left out Truman. 

We wouldn't be having this conversation if the President/Executive branch were not involved, no. If there were just some rogue CIA agents torturing without permission from above, then this would be a different situation. And... it would also be different if Texas tried to secede? I mean, you can come up with different scenarios, but in this scenario, it has to be about the Constitution.

[goaliechica]

two reasons:  you fixated on this part of it, and you wrong.

What exactly am I wrong about?

It not being a constitutional issue, or it not being the "best" argument to bring up the constitution.

[Julie Fern]

two reasons: you fixated on this part of it, and you wrong.

What exactly am I wrong about?

And I do have trouble letting things go.

no one ever say "go constitutional at first."  julie just say "prosecute torturers."  discussion go from there, as they will.

now you let go first.

[bl825]

two reasons: you fixated on this part of it, and you wrong.

What exactly am I wrong about?

And I do have trouble letting things go.

no one ever say "go constitutional at first."  julie just say "prosecute torturers."  discussion go from there, as they will.

now you let go first.

Okay, if you're saying that I'm wrong about the way I read your posts, I'm ready to concede that.

This is me slowly letting go.

[Julie Fern]

trick is not look down.