Should the president be allowed to circumvent the law during a time of war?
142460
No -- the law already provides means for the President to act in emergencies.  Claiming the right to do anything at all in "wartime" in furtherance of "national security" -- including the sole right to define "wartime" and "national security" is extremely dangerous.  Even with checks and balances in place this country has jailed pacifists (not draft resisters, simply opponents of WW 1) and imprisoned citizens of Japanese descent -- for no reason other than their race.  It will be far worse if no checks of law or balances from the courts and Congress remain.
711628
A president that has broken the law most certainly should stand before a judge and be pronounced guilty.  If this question is aimed at George W Bush, however, I would challenge anyone to provide the domestic or international law he is guilty of breaking
272148
The rules are that we will not use assassination as a tool to remove someone from power that we do not like or agree with.  However in the case of Saddam's son's we were at war with their country and they were killed fighting us and that is a long way from assassination.  While it may seem to be easier to change things by sending a lone assassin in to do the job, to have that as part of our policy would open up the leaders of our country to assassination from those that did not agree with us.  However a commander in chief of a country at war is in fact a justified military target.  I have seen a couple of the messes we caused by having this assassination policy done by CIA operatives and we would have been better off politically to have dealt with the leader we took out than the leader we put in. It is a bad policy and should remain illegal.  The policy to stop these assassinations came about by Executive Order by Gerald Ford when he was President and can be rescinded by executive order by any President that may feel that it is a policy we want to use, so this is a policy that is in the hands on one man and not under a system of checks and balances.
1129718
The President can send troop into a situation for 90 days without Congressional approval. However, as the vote was put after the events of 9/11 he was given the authority to pursue what course he chose. He chose to target Iraq.
690232
Unfortunately in the eyes of the law its murder....but it should be justifiable,Just as Bush justifies every law hes broken, every lie hes told to turn it around and say its it our countries best interest... I should also add its justifed when your property or life depends on it.  That goes for many other circumstances well apart from the borders of this country.
411484
Actually a person can only be charged with treason during war time, which requires an act of Congress. Offically we are not at war right now, the last war as approved by Congress was WW2. So he would obviously be removed from office, and if found out he leaked secrets then he would be placed in prison.
1164693
Congress.  President can deploy troops in certain, specific instances without the consent of Congress.
1111798
Yes, as it doesn't give the president much power at all. All the president has the ability to do is force a simple majority vote on an item. \n\nThis doesn't actually give him the ability to alter legislation.
684764
There are no laws against using our military to secure our border.\n\nThere is a law against using the military to enforce Civil law without presidential authorization but this law does not apply to the National Guard.
934628
unfortunately the president is under alot more political and judicial protection than you think. since there hasn't been a real reason to bring him to a Judaical boar you ll never see one. besides its only illegal if the Vaseline was used on forced entry .
655049
turboweegie: Can you cite case-law for your claim that the Courts have allowed the Executive to ignore federal law (FISA) whenever he feels like it?\n\nLast I checked, the Supreme Court has said that just being President doesn't give him a "blank check" to ignore the rules. See Handam v. Rumsfeld.\n\nWe have a Commander-in-Sheik who has publicly admitted to ignoring not only federal law, but the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments, and supports violations of Articles I, III, IV and VI of the Constitution. \n\nWhy do people keep supporting Bush? Some combination of apathy and not being willing to change Horseman in mid-Apocalypse.
1085093
unfortunately, yes.  as the commander in chief of the armed forces, the president can send them in to any place he wants, and technically they are supposed to follow his orders.  in the event that he doesnt leave office, impeachment obviously wouldnt work, and the only way to get rid of him would be to kill him, as Thomas Jefferson alluded to when he said that the people had the right and responsibility to overthrow a government that is corrupt and reestablish the old system.\n\nnow, to your question.  in debate on the house floor a few years ago (right before the invasion of iraq), representative mcdermott quoted an article from the Sydney Morning Herald titled, "Foundations are in Place for Martial Law in the United States."  Bascially, during the Iran-Contra Affair, Ronald Reagan issued an executive order giving FEMA even broader powers than Congress gave it, and among these powers were the ability to prevent violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition against a US military invasion abroad through the use of the military, basically, declaring martial law.  all of reagans papers, including this order, were sealed by the bush administration.  therefore, we do not know the full story.  \n\ni hope that this answers your question.  ive got the whole speech, and id be happy to give it to you if you want it.
158331
Yes. But at least we have two more years of him in office. I don't appreciate the president bypassing Congress. The president's power is limited by the Constitution for a reason.\n If he can authorize spying on US citizens without the consent of Congress or the Courts, what else can't he order?
1078935
I think you mean posse comitatus. This prohibits military personnel from acting as law enforcement in the US, unless authorized by Congress
554457
No. Only Congress can legally declare war, so it has the power of the sword. (Except when certain executives take that power into their own hands.)  And it's true that Congress also has the power of the purse, but only when Congress isn't full of scaredy-cats who wouldn't say boo to a goose, much less say no to a president.
290028
No, he should be tried for treason, war crimes and crimes against humanity as should the congressmen who voted for the authorization to use force and hence launch the war in Iraq. Both the President, his cabinet and the Congress are in violation of 10CFR20, the code of federal regulations that explicitly dictactes when and how force can be used.
748719
Well, the constitution does not have a clause saying that "presidential bodyguards are not allowed to vote".  Therefore, it would be unconstitutional to prohibit them from voting.  \n\nNow, that does not give them permission to voice their opinions directly to the president or anyone else while they are doing their duty.  Their job is to protect the president (plus other officials) and not to voice their opinions.  If that happened, I would bet that secret service agent would be reassigned and probably reprimanded.  Their position does not give them special status to debate the prez instead of watching out for him.  If their political views prevented them from protecting the president, then they should work on catching counterfeiters instead.\n\nNOTE added since asker requested to know where in the constitution it said that citizens have the right to vote.\n\nThe constitution does not have an explicit right to vote clause.  However, the Supreme Court has decided that there is an implicit right to vote because of the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments to the consitution.  This implicit right gives every citizen the right to vote within limits passed by the states.  The states cannot impose unfair limits, however, such as removing voting rights based on what job you have.\n\nAlso, using your same logic, you could argue that nobody in the military should be able to vote.  The president is the commander general of the military and a vote against the president could be considered mutiny.