Majivo wrote:
gbaji wrote:
To be more complete, their argument is that the Supreme Court "should" rule that these actions do not violate the rights of the people. Better?
Far better, considering your original statement, by your own definition, says that it's
already legal to do these things. Which again, is not what he's saying; he's simply saying that there's no Constitutional barriers to it.
Sigh... Can't win for trying.
That's why I used the word "should" in there. It denotes an unproven assumption. I "should" be able to walk the dog for you tonight. I "should" be able to fix this car. In that context, it means that I'm not currently aware of anything which would prevent me from doing those things, but leaves in the possibility that something might come up to do just that. I chose that word specifically because I didn't want to get caught making an absolute statement, given that the authors didn't make one themselves.
It's funny to watch the semantic dance on this board sometimes...
Quote:
Do you believe that it's already legal to do everything written about in this textbook? Because there's a massive difference between it actually being legal, and it becoming a law being legal. That is, there's no reason why Congress couldn't make this a law.
It's irrelevant what I think. The point is that the authors wrote that those actions do have sufficient legal justification to be used if the need is great enough. That's the concern here. What things might he suggest to the president are "legally justified" in order to fight something like global warming? It's not about what he advocates personally, but what options he's essentially putting on the table and how those options are defined that is the problem.
Now maybe he just got sucked into a stupid crowd back in the 70s and co-authored a book with a kook. But that at least calls into question his judgment, doesn't it? Of all the people in the country Obama could have picked to be his head adviser on all matters scientific, he couldn't find someone better than this guy?