|
simple: I already understand your opinion on the matter. As the articles I posted already point out, your opinion is not correct according to the law as it currently exists or legal precendent.
First you said that you were deriving your conclusions from the constitution, so I asked you to direct me to the relevent section. You replied by providing an [incorrect] interpretation of what you perceive to be the job of the executive branch of the government.
If you disagree with this assertion, then quote the portion of the constitution you think is relevent and refutes the position. Why do you find providing evidence for your opinions so hard to do; instead choosing to assert your personal opinions as legal fact?
And yes, if you think that our constitution allows for one single branch, namely the enforcement or "executive" branch, to produce policies, interpret whether particular laws are constitutional or not, and then act upon such opinions, then why would you question whether we are becoming a police state? Your personal [incorrrect] interpretation of the constitution describes a police state since this nation's inception.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|