This is an interesting read – here’s a quick snippet:
The assertion that the president is perennially “at the zenith of his powers” seems to be a common theme of this administration, doesn’t it? And the assertion that president is not claiming he has “a blank check that says [he] can do whatever he wants” rings rather hollow. It seems he is doing exactly that, and claiming that a vague, generalized authorization to prevent terrorism somehow trumps a law saying not to do certain particular, specified things. I’m not sure if anyone in the White House or the Justice Department went to law school, or understands basic logic for that matter, but generally speaking, the specific takes precedence over the general. For example, if there are two laws on the books, one that says “you are authorized to eat three meals a day” and another that says “you’re not allowed to eat broccoli,” you can’t justify eating broccoli, in defiance of the specific ban, by citing the generalized “three meals a day” law. That simply is not how laws, or logic, work. Just saying.
