Originally posted by: piasabird
So when the country is in a state of War, doesnt that change things a bit?
What a conveniently vague way of phrasing that question. In fact, every time I hear that argument, it's some candy-ass way of arguing for a position without actually saying anything that means anything. At least you didn't go for the trite "the world changed on 9/11", but you didn't improve the argument a whole lot either. What are "things", at what is "a bit"? You suggest being in a "state of War" should be justification for doing SOME things differently without specifying what those things are, yet with the obvious implied argument that virtually ANYTHING is justified if we're at war.
Here's your question phrased in a more honest way: "So when the country is in a state of War, doesn't that change the President's obligation to uphold the constitution?" Of course you didn't actually phrase it that way because it sounds pretty silly.