lindita:

What are the rules for someone who moves, for whatever reason, between the close of registration and the election? I always assumed if there was not sufficient time to reregister you simply voted at your old address. There have to be thousands of people in this situation every election.

From what I've heard, that is the case, but I really don't know. But what I understand of the "foreclosure tactic" is that they will use the foreclosure lists to try and "cage" addresses (in presumptive Democratic areas) to send letters to, and if the letters come back undeliverable, they will challenge the voter registration. Don't know if that's what was planned in Michigan, but that has bean a tactic elsewhere, and some states may take such a returned letter as sufficient cause to take a name off the rolls. You might be able to challenge the removal at the polling station, and get a provisional ballot, but it does have a discouraging effect....

Cheers,

Posted at October 3, 2008 1:58 PM in response to MI GOP Official Sues News Website Over 'Lose Your Home Lose Your Vote' Story

Here's the problem with all of this... The Constitution grants Bush wartime powers as Commander in Chief, AND, Congress was briefed on everything Bush was doing, not to mention the Congressional war powers authorizations.

The problem with this is that many Supreme Court cases (including Youngstown and the recent detainee cases) say that the president's "wartime powers" are not unlimited, and in fact must yield to Congress when Congress steps in.

A further problem is that Congress (or more accurately, just a few select Congresscritters) getting "briefed" on anything (if such actually happened) hardly makes such lawful. The Constitution specified how laws are to be enacted, and the means for doing so is not "tacit assent of a few chosen legislators".

And another FWIW, just to completely blow shooter242's idiocy here out of the water, the AUMF 'argument' has been rejected by the Supreme Court as well (and is not actively asserted by the maladministration any more).

Cheers,

Posted at September 30, 2008 12:45 PM in response to The Unmentionable Question

Anyone have a transcript (or link to one) for Delahunt's questions?

Emptywheel has one but it seems to be a bit rough in places.

Thanks,

Posted at February 7, 2008 7:20 PM in response to Mukasey: The Law Is What The Justice Department Says It Is

Snarki:

So does that mean that Bush signed off on the previous uses of waterboarding? Was there an actual explicit approval?

If not, why is the CIA doing this stuff without approval.

If so, isn't that a confession to war crimes?

I suggested precisely that in my first link a couple comments above. I think the answer would be "yes" ... which is why the maladministration is so intent on insisting that waterboarding isn't torture....

Cheers,

Posted at February 6, 2008 6:12 PM in response to White House: Waterboarding Is A-OK

I've got more thoughts on this latest persiflage here.

The maladministration is trying to "justify" this by talking only about the waterboarding (and ignoring such as the torture of el-Masri), and saying it's an 'exceptional' type procedure, used only for the 'baddest of the bad', and only when we really need to do it to save lives.

But all that crapola falls to pieces if anyone looks carefully. See my first link above.

Cheers,

Posted at February 6, 2008 6:01 PM in response to White House: Waterboarding Is A-OK