Skip to main content

About your Search

20090604
20171022
STATION
DATE
2017 8
2015 3
2016 1
LANGUAGE
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
district court, that the president had all of the authority, that george iii had unless it was taken from him by the constitution. well, you can imagine the press outcry about this. i mean it just made headlines. it just gave a negative aspect -- the government aman donned that argument long before it got to the supreme court, but it just got the government off on the wrong foot. and there was an ambivalence about the korean war at that point, wasn't there? >> very much so. there were people fighting and dying in korea, but very few sacrifices called for on the home front. world war i -- rather world war ii -- i'm not that old. world war ii, you know, you had 14 million people under arms, but a lot of things restricted on the home front. the korean war, you just didn't have those restrictions on the home front. so there's just a real ambivalence as you say. >> with all of the legal counsel the president got before, how did the government get off to such a bad start in making the case in the federal courts? >> well, there was an assistant attorney general who i think will live in infamy fo
authority that george, iii had unless it was taken from him by the constitution. you can imagine the press outcry about this, i mean it just made headlines. and it just gave a negative aspect. the government abandoned that argument long before it got to the supreme court. but it just got the government off on the wrong foot. >> and there was an ambivalence about the korean war, wasn't there, at that point? >> there were people fighting and dying in korea. but there were very few forces called for on the home front. world war ii, you know, you had 14 million people under arms. but a lot of things restricted on the home front. the korean war you just didn't have those restrictions on the home front. so there's a real ambivalence as you say? >> with all the legal counsel that the president got before, how did this case get a bad start off in the koucourts. >> the government never fully gets out of this mess. and he tries to make the argument partly on the basis of statutory authority, but then he gets into a discussion, really, with a district judge, in which the district judge does a f
president had all of the authority that george iii had a -- unless it was taken from him by the constitution. can imagine the press outcry about this. it just made headlines. it gotive aspect stop the government off on the wrong foot. was an ambivalence about the korean war even then, wasn't there? >> very much. people fighting and dying in korea. but very few sacrifices on the home front. world war i, i am not that old, world war ii, you had 14 million people under arms. a lot of things group restricted on the home front. the korean war, you do not have those restrictions on the homefront. so there was just a really ambivalence, as you will see. host: with all of the legal counsel, how did the government get off to such a bad start in making the case in the federal courts? >> there is a secretary of general will be live in infamy for getting into this mess. out of which the government never fully gets, i would say. he tries to make the argument partly on the basis of statutory authority. but then he gets into discussion really, with a district judge, in which the district judge
beginning. the president had all of the authority that george the third had a less it was taken from him by the constitution. you can imagine the press outcry about this. it made headlines. aspect,ave a negative the government abandon their argument before it got to fix -- supreme court. it got the government on the wrong foot. >> ambivalence about the korean war at that point? >> very much so. people fighting and dying above very few sacrifices called on the home front. old, war ii, i am not that had 14 millionou people under arms. a lot of things group restricted on the home front. the korean war, you do not have those restrictions. a real ambivalence. with all of the legal counsel, how did the government get off to such a bad start in making the case in the federal courts? >> there is a secretary of general will be live in infamy for getting into this mess. out of which the government never fully gets, i would say. she tries to make the argument partly on the basis of statutory authority. but event he gets into discussion really with a district judge in which the district judge cross-exa
representatives made. let's listen. the president had all the authority that george the third had unless it was taken from him about it constitution. you can imagine the press outcry about this. i mean it made headlines. and it just gave a negative aspect. government band ond that argument long before it got to the supreme court. it just got the government on to the wrong foot. >> there was an ambivalence about the korean war at that time. >> very much so. there were people fighting and dying in korea. very few sacrifices called for on the homefront. world war ich, rather world wari d -- i'm not that old -- a lot of things restricted o on the homefront. the korean war, you just didn't have the restrictions on the homefront. so they're a real ambivalence as you say. >> with all of the legal council the president got before, how did the government get off to such a bad start in making the case in the federal courts? >> well, the secretary of general will be live in infamy for getting into this mess. out of which the government never fully gets, i would say. he is hardly on the base
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)