|
The 2006 act was passed by Congress. In 2008 it was repealed but Pres. Bush retained his abilities by a signing statement.
The constitutionality of using armed forces on US soil is not the issue, it's the legality of signing statements that is in question...well not too much question, the courts have ruled consistently that he can't do that.
But if they ever were utilized, it's not like Congress would refuse to authorize it on the fly as they have in the past.
Willravel, I can read the article for myself. Of course I saw the "or". I'm using information from the source, however, and I don't appreciate you lying that you spoke to dept. heads in order to refute my contribution to the thread. If you want to hold incorrect information in your head and post threads about us being under military law then be my guest. If you wanted to know the direct information, I posted it but I'm not here to argue over what I personally know to be true...and that includes the BS that you actually spoke to anyone in authority on these matters or you wouldn't be posting like you have so far.
__________________
"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
|