Is the White House having the McCain torture bill both ways? After strongly opposing McCain’s amendment to the defense appropriations bill, which President Bush signed last month, the White House appeared to cave to popular and political sentiment. However, the Boston Globe reports that President Bush, citing his Constitutional authority as commander-in-chief, is interpreting the law to have exceptions when national security is at risk.
I appreciate that White House lawyers have found a way around McCain’s potentially disastrous law. But if they’re correct, and the loopholes are Constitutional, wouldn’t that suggest that the McCain bill is unconstitutional? And that, knowing this, the President signed it anyway? As with campaign finance, another sad, unconstitutional deal with the gentleman from Arizona, it appears that the President did the popular thing while crossing his fingers behind his back.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?