Reply #12

In the discussion thread: When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal [View all]

Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:50 PM

baldguy (30,551 posts)

12. Nixon didn't quite have it right.

When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal - until CONGRESS steps in and says it isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

48 replies	Author	Time	Post
When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal [View all]	Leslie Valley	Feb 2013	OP
LOL	leftstreet	Feb 2013	#1
Nixon was the one!	slackmaster	Feb 2013	#2
Kicked and rec'd BUT...	Lionessa	Feb 2013	#3
So far I do think Nixon is the closest a-like that Obama resembles in his policies	DJ13	Feb 2013	#8
I predict an alert and a Meta thread about this post	Capt. Obvious	Feb 2013	#10
You might be right	DJ13	Feb 2013	#21
Depends on the topic	Lionessa	Feb 2013	#25
Agreed.	CrispyQ	Feb 2013	#31
Your "early 70s reefer buzz" is spot on.	amandabeech	Feb 2013	#34
Thanks for the history! I put it on my Google list & now I can cross it off.	CrispyQ	Feb 2013	#38
I couldn't agree with you more!	amandabeech	Feb 2013	#46
K&R	Solly Mack	Feb 2013	#4
...	n2doc	Feb 2013	#5
What ^^^ said. nt	tblue	Feb 2013	#17
The difference is...	bvar22	Feb 2013	#6
Except that his actions were actually illegal	jeff47	Feb 2013	#7
And it's keeping us safe!	Capt. Obvious	Feb 2013	#9
When they do it, we'll be upset.	tblue	Feb 2013	#15
Woohoo for you.	Dawgs	Feb 2013	#20
It's the least-awful of 3 awful options.	jeff47	Feb 2013	#30
option 4 letters marque	AngryAmish	Feb 2013	#32
Yeah....not so much interested in Blackwater doing the fighting with even less oversight. (nt)	jeff47	Feb 2013	#33
How does it differ?	n2doc	Feb 2013	#11
No, it's legal because the Constitution says it is.	jeff47	Feb 2013	#29
No it's not. It violates habeus.	grahamhgreen	Feb 2013	#13
It would if these attacks were happening within US jurisdiction.	jeff47	Feb 2013	#28
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended"	grahamhgreen	Feb 2013	#35
Again, you're still arguing as if the killings are within US Jurisdiction	jeff47	Feb 2013	#43
Wrong. War was declared. Our government is obvioulsy subject to our laws.	grahamhgreen	Feb 2013	#48
My copy of the US Constitution says it's very very illegal.	xtraxritical	Feb 2013	#16
Not to mention - the Constitution says the UN Charter is "law of the land"	wtmusic	Feb 2013	#19
Could you point to the part of your copy that says the Constitution applies outside US jurisdiction?	jeff47	Feb 2013	#26
It's called the Supremacy clause.	wtmusic	Feb 2013	#37
And since we're at war, as far as those treaties are concerned, the killings are legal. (nt)	jeff47	Feb 2013	#39
Per below, we're not at war.	wtmusic	Feb 2013	#45
As a US citizen the Constitution applies to me where ever I am, geez.	xtraxritical	Feb 2013	#47
You know nothing about international law	wtmusic	Feb 2013	#18
No, you're making the mistake of thinking there isn't a war on.	jeff47	Feb 2013	#27
No, they're not equivalent. As much as you and Dubya want them to be.	wtmusic	Feb 2013	#36
So the Vietnam War wasn't a war?	jeff47	Feb 2013	#41
Don't forget Korea, Somalia, Kosovo.	wtmusic	Feb 2013	#44
Nixon didn't quite have it right.	baldguy	Feb 2013	#12
I guess there were good reasons	JEB	Feb 2013	#14
We didn't.	mlevans	Feb 2013	#24
IOKIYAR	Jack Rabbit	Feb 2013	#22
Executive Orders That Violate the Constitution Are Not Legal	triplepoint	Feb 2013	#23
KNR	joeybee12	Feb 2013	#40
Nixon seems to have always thought he was above the law.	Cleita	Feb 2013	#42

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.