is t is disgraceful what we are going to men and women in uniform and their families in afghanistan. by dragging out a war where there is no good ending to that war. we have politicians in washington, d.c. that are letting our men and women die in afghanistan right now. after the mission was accomplished years ago of hunting down al qaeda. and yet they re doing it not for military reasons, doing it for political reasons, because they don t want to be blamed for losing the war and young men and women are dying because of it. it is disgraceful what is going on in washington, d.c. on afghanistan and it s disgraceful that the news media is not reporting this! joe, it s a disgrace that seeps down through all levels of our culture here at home and of our politics here at homant disgrace begins with the fact that less than 1% of the people in this country and their families are carrying the burden of this war. their hearts are being broken, we bitch about the rise in gasoline prices while t
what happens? is t does the homeowner get the house back? i doubt that could happen. the subsequent buyer of the property for value would have certain rights, commerce wouldn t be able to go on unless ultimate buyers of property like this were protected from that but there could be liability. so, what are you trying to get for your client who may fall under that category, had their homes taken from them wrongly? well our clients are clients presently being sued for foreclosure, the banks are now trying to take the homes wrongly. so, what we are doing is we are working on getting these cases dismissed the best we can so that you are our clients lend up owning the home. peter ticktin, a very busy man. thanks for joining us on msnbc. thanks for having me here. a big battle looming in nevada. harry reid is set to defend his seat against up and comer challenger republican sharron angle. the tea party-backed angle is coming on strong against reid.
few and far between. now, are they nonexistent? well, suppose congress said something like we re going to take away the president s pardon power. a power that s specifically committed to the president by article two. i think that would be a hard case. i think the court might say, well, notwithstanding that congress tried to do that. congress can t do that. the president has that power and doesn t matter what congress says about the matter. but those are very few and far between. for the most part the presumption is that the president, if told by congress that he can t do something, can t do something. okay, let me ask this. does the president, in your view, have the authority to detain american citizens without criminal trial if they re suspected of conspiring to aid terrorists of participating in
and the question you raise really, the usual framework that people use when they go to this question is something called youngstown. so, of course, justice jackson s opinion and youngstown and he sets forth three different zones. he says, well, in one zone the president can act in accordance with congressional authority. and that is the easiest for a court to validate, to say, look, congress and the president is t acting together. the courts should give real deference to that. let me stop you here, the three-prong test and we discussed this in almost every supreme court confirmation hearing now. the concern is where there isn t legislation or when the third prong, when legislation may say the opposite, can the president