2007-03-20 12:54:16 · 6 answers · asked by andy r 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's an "ends justify the means" argument.
If the goals are valid, then nobody should question whether laws get broken in the process. In the legal arena, it's called an affirmative defense of justification.
What many people don't seem to realize is that there was no valid reason for many of the laws that Bush violated. He could have accomplised the exact same things, within the laws that existed. Or he could have lobbied to get the laws changed.
So, where there is a legal way to do something, there is no legal justification for breaking the laws by doing it a different way. Bush just doesn't think he should have to follow the laws.
2007-03-20 12:59:47 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most "Bushees" believe in the law, it seems like. They just don't like it and ignore it. But they think the world is better place WITH it.
2007-03-20 12:57:49 · answer #2 · answered by worldthoughts 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no. without the law there would be no government, without the government they wouldn't have jobs.
2007-03-20 12:58:09 · answer #3 · answered by B0NER 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its the new world disorder
2007-03-20 12:57:53 · answer #4 · answered by fuufingf 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You could've asked that a lot better!!!!
2007-03-20 12:57:28 · answer #5 · answered by Stormy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no way. they don't
2007-03-20 12:57:27 · answer #6 · answered by maryfairy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋