Ksupoke, if you read into my post that I think you should think it is okay because Bush did it, you should learn to read without the bias. I said all Presidents have done it and that it is perfectly within the the right of the executive power to do what Presidents have done. The executive branch is charged with enforcing laws, the direction of the executive branch to enforce those laws is exactly what the constitution establishes. It is no different if a police officer decides to let a couple of pot smoking teens get away because he has better things to worry about. I by no means say this is right. I was pointing out that both sides pretend this is an issue exclusive to the opposition. The fact is the only way to address these issues are with constitutional changes or drastic changes to the law. The article originally posted is conservative propaganda in the same vane as the thousands of similar articles about Bush. The author has an agenda that would not apply to a President from his party. There are a lot of us out there that are sick of the partisan politics, especially when those bias are being fought in the media. How many arguments on this board center on a persons citations. A poster can't defend a point with a citation because someone always considers it a biased opinion. This is a critic of media, not of posters. I was careful to find the exact reports from the ABA because I believed that to be the best source without bias. There were tons of articles about the reports but all came from newspapers considered liberal, so I didn't use them. The problem I have is the article originally posted is designed to divide and not discuss. I have no problem with the argument or the topic, they are issues that should be discussed but when a "columnist" has an agenda to enrage a constituency for political reasons, that is just as scary as fear of over reaching political power.
"Do people seriously listen to this stuff? I hope this was posted as a demonstration to the ignorance of the author."