>From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
>I am more concerned by claims that since we are in a state of war, it
>is permissible to suspend various guarantees of our rights and freedoms.
>If we are not actually "in a state of war" then these claims are bogus
>and should be opposed as false.
> > Because there is no practical difference between the president's "war
>time powers" and
> > the power he has to address national security emergencies short of
>formal declaration of
> > war.
>
>If so this seems to be a big gaping hole in Constitutional checks and
>balances.
There is no hole in the checks and balances. The president can commit
troops to fight, but only on the advice and consent of Congress. The
Congress can enact legislation which may restrict your civil liberties,
subject to the judiciary striking their enactments as unconstitutional. Do
not over-react. Our Constitutional checks and balances are still as
effective as ever.
That is not to say that there won't be some over-the-top legislation coming
down the pike in the days and weeks to come, but it will only stand if it
can pass constitutional muster.
-Zero
"I'm a seeker too. But my dreams aren't like yours. I can't help thinking
that somewhere in the universe there has to be something better than man.
Has to be." -- George Taylor _Planet of the Apes_ (1968)
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:55 MDT