Speaking personally, I certainly wouldn't want a family of emotionally retarded inbreds with an over weaning sense of entitlement to be ruling this country.
— LondonLad

Yeah, it didn't work out so well over here either.

Baring that, I'd kill for a "ignore" or "filter" option. At least that way I can completely skip the crap and not waste the time and bytes downloading text I'm not going to read.
— KB4Hire

Actually, for anyone who is proficient in javascript it should be a breeze to write a Greasemonkey script that will filter out letters by author. I'd do it myself, but it's been years since I wrote any javascript and it would take me a while to get back up to speed and I just don't have the time right now. But it should be simply a matter of collecting the letters into an array and then deleting those on your ignore list before writing the array to the page.

I know it's Congress, but as commander-in-chief of the military, the President has taken it upon himself to declare Martial law before.

Name an instance when the president has "taken it upon himself" to declare martial law without the authorization of Congress.

A sitting President? No. A man who became President, yes. Andrew Jackson.

I see. So we've gone from "the President has taken it upon himself to declare Martial law before" to the simple fact that no president has actually done this but a man who would become president 14 years later, while acting as a military commander in the field during a time of declared war involving an actual invasion of the United States, did so. You obviously aren't aware of this, but it is fairly common for military commanders to declare martial law in and around the battlefield. Jackson declared martial law in New Orleans after the British landed troops and established a garrison. Perhaps your knowledge of military history is on a par with your knowledge of constitutional law (which seems to be based on a single web site that you are unable to interpret correctly because you lack the knowledge necessary to put the information in context).

Let's put this in perspective. What you said happened didn't actually happen, but something vaguely similar happened long ago in a galaxy far, far away. And somehow you feel that this moving of the goalposts vindicates the blatantly false claims you have made about the president's alleged powers to declare martial law. Oh, and the actions of Congress in attempting to amend the Insurrection Act in 2006 are extremely relevant to the president's ability to impose martial law. You are simply too ignorant of the Constitution and the relevant law to be able to realize it.

You are a waste of time, cow-man, and I have wasted enough time on you. I could be doing something more productive like playing solitaire or watching cartoons on TV. You can continue to bluster and splutter and hurl insults because no one is willing to accept your idiosyncratic worldview, but you can do it alone.

I know it's Congress, but as commander-in-chief of the military, the President has taken it upon himself to declare Martial law before. Congress then can oppose or ignore, which effectively either sets up a power struggle, or lets Martial Law stand which effectively suspends the Constitution, since the Military is now imposing Law on the country!
— Vacca

Name an instance when the president has "taken it upon himself" to declare martial law without the authorization of Congress. There's really no point in discussing this until you have read Ex parte Milligan and the Insurrection Act. It wouldn't hurt you to read Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (343 U.S. 579 [1952]) either. Let me know when you've done that and we'll talk again.

Oh, and a hint: repeatedly saying something is true without providing evidence does not, by the mere repetition, make it true.

Yes, I am aware of that, thanks. Maybe you didn't understand my post?
— Vacca

I understood your post. It was written in fairly simplistic English. What I didn't understand is why you made it since its only effect is to demonstrate your ignorance of the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The Constitution provides for the suspension of habeas corpus "in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it" and its suspension is a power granted to the legislature by the Constitution. The Constitution also provides for "calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions" and again, this is a power granted to the legislature, keeping in mind that the "militia" was intended by the framers to take the place of a standing army. Under this provision, Congress authorized the president to use the militia (armed forces) in limited circumstances (insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy), when certain conditions of lawlessness existed, by the Insurrection Act of 1807. This authorization falls within the powers granted to Congress in the Constitution.

In 2006, the 109th Congress (the same people who brought you the Military Commissions Act of 2006) amended the Insurrection Act to include many more circumstances, including the odious phrase "or other condition" which did in fact give the president the authority to use the armed forces to enforce federal law pretty much whenever he wanted. Fortunately these amendments were repealed by the 110th Congress and the Insurrection Act is now back to the original wording of 1807.

Have you read Ex parte Milligan yet?

Where did you learn your constitutional law? — from John Yoo at Boalt?

Undoubtedly, but I'd missed the 'cow' reference.

That's why we need WT here to translate the Latin for us.