publius
Member
I haven't forgotten, Ieyasu. I agree Bush would probably be better in that area, though I doubt he'd appoint anyone who disagreed with him about the mean looking weapons ban.
I'm also very concerned that in a couple of days, John Kerry could have the power to unilaterally declare a citizen an enemy combatant and lock him up indefinitely on secret evidence. Strikes me as changing the form of our government, invalidating habeas corpus, and assaulting parts of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments to the Constitution.
I doubt Bush will appoint people who disagree with him on that.
I'm concerned about the political class taking over political speech in this country through things like McCain Feingold, but how likely is it that Bush is going to appoint someone who goes around saying that a law he signed is unconstitutional? Wouldn't that be kind of embarassing?
At some point, enough is enough. For me, we've past that point.
I'm also very concerned that in a couple of days, John Kerry could have the power to unilaterally declare a citizen an enemy combatant and lock him up indefinitely on secret evidence. Strikes me as changing the form of our government, invalidating habeas corpus, and assaulting parts of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments to the Constitution.
I doubt Bush will appoint people who disagree with him on that.
I'm concerned about the political class taking over political speech in this country through things like McCain Feingold, but how likely is it that Bush is going to appoint someone who goes around saying that a law he signed is unconstitutional? Wouldn't that be kind of embarassing?
At some point, enough is enough. For me, we've past that point.