The plaque is on display in the Imperial War Museum in London.

SF – Persons who work in the Attorney General’s office are NOT Bush’s attorneys. Alberto Gonzales is no longer Bush’s attorney (although he continues to conduct himself in a manner which suggests that he is). He is supposed to be OUR Attorney General. This is one of the many problems with this illegitimate and idiotic administration; they place loyalty to George W. Bush above all else. As for whether Mr. Bradbury was kidding when he gave his ridiculous answer to Senator Leahy’s legitimate question, nobody testifying in such a capacity should give such a ludicrous response. If he’s kidding, he certainly shouldn’t audition for Comedy Central. If he’s being serious, we should all be very concerned.

I have two responses to Bradbury’s comments that the Supreme Court decision implictly recognizes that we are in a war. First, the Supreme Court is not given the constitutional authority to determine whether or not the country is de jure at war. The Congress is the only body authorized to make this legal determination. (Of course, we are de facto at war, but if you need anybody, let alone the Supreme Court, to explain that bombing a city is war, I recommend caffeinated coffee.)

Second, is the question we should be asking in response to Bradbury’s claim about being at war. “What does it mean that the President is in violation of the Geneva Conventions in a war?” It means that he is a war criminal, by definition, and should face the appropriate sanctions and punishments. It also means that he is in violation of the Constitution, by definition, and needs to be removed from office.

Perhaps Bradbury’s comment about the President being always right is being taken out of context here, but the context is not amenable to Constitutional government or rule by law, no matter how you slice it. THAT is what should frighten all of us, left or right. Once you lose the rule of law, you usually don’t get it back cheaply.

1. We’re gonna be on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
2. Horray for the team
3. Ah, job security
4. Master will be pleased
5. Touché

Either way, CSPAN is looking more and more like “Dictator Pee-Wee’s Playhouse”.

War Powers Resolution, Section 8 (d)(1).

“(d) Nothing in this joint resolution–

(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties”

…so, a resolution that specifically states that it does not alter constitutional authority is somehow unconstitutional?

and you’re surprised that presidents wouldn’t like something that says ‘no, in fact you don’t have any more power during wartime’ when presidents have historically used wars as opportunities to expand presidential power?

the thing we’re not talking about here is vice-presidential power — or lack thereof, according to the constitution. clearly we’re in a situation now where instead of “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” (as stated in article ii, section 1 of the constitution), we have the executive power being exercised by the president and vice president.

we do not elect co-presidents! the constitution is quite clear on delineation of vice presidential powers, and for good reason: before the 12th amendment was passed, the vice president could in all likelihood have been a political rival of the president. therefore the vice president is delegated a very simple role in the constitution — president of the senate and tie-breaking vote there — and that’s it!

i think it’s clear what the intent of the founding fathers was in this case. they never envisioned a vice president that would wield executive powers, not to mention influence policy on military, intelligence, and foreign affairs.

sure, that ignores the realities of today. fine — amend the constitution to reflect that reality. otherwise we have a tacit breach of the constitution, and a very bad precedent being set right now, with respect to exertion of executive powers by the vice president, who clearly is not granted that authority under the constitution.

Just make sure you’re eyes are glazed over when you say that.

Here’s an exchange Tuesday between Pat Leahy and the head of the Justice Department’s office of legal counsel, Steven Bradbury:LEAHY: The president has said very specifically, and he’s said it to our European allies, he’s waiting for the Supreme Co…