The US president is now as powerful as a monarch, according to a new book by an American professor published to coincide with the start of George W Bush's second term.

At the court of King George

Let's hope he will finish like one, that is at the end of a pick

Graubbard is living in his own little lala land. Anyone who fails to see the threat of the global jihadist is in lala land. We are lucky Kerry didn't win because he was completely in lala land too.

New flash girlie men: the terrorist threat is real. 9/11 did happen. Al queda is not a nice group of free thinking fellahs. Snap out of it!
Dare not to be a liberal lemming jumping from the cliffs of reason.

You lost already that war. Now we have to wait for the final Iraq debacles with a CNN live coverage of US soldiers fleeing the scene with their rifle between the legs

Don't hold your breath butterboy! Americans are going to see this one through. And that's a fact Jack!

Interesting. Some of these same things were said about FDR.

I hope you all have a hatred of that man that is just as vicious? After all you wouldnt want to be hypocrites.

Wow! A Professor wrote a book about how powerful the President is. That is amazing! It proves absolutely nothing but it re-enforces your own small understanding!

Ann Coulter wrote a book accusing Democrats of the past of all being commie sympathizers. Therefore, it must be true without any doubt or room for independent thought!

I wish I had known that all you liberals need in order to believe something is to have it written down. We could introduce you to a whole new world of material that should convert you immediately.

In what field has Ann Coulter earned her doctorate?

I mean, I'm not saying that everything this professor says is true, because I'm not familiar with him and haven't read his book. I'm just amused by the comparison of a professor to a political pundit.

Can you disprove anything the professor is claiming (whatever it is? )

Ann Coulter has been proven to be a "incorrect" on a number of issues.

I don't believe she has a doctorate, but here is her background -

"Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.

After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.

Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review."

I'd say she has as much knowledge, if not more, than most of the posters here. But she's secondary because I don't even like Coulter that much. My point is more that anyone can write a book. Just becuase she wrote a book claiming something, liberals don't automatically believe her. But a professor writes a book that says President Bush has more power than a monarch and someone comes on here and posts it as if we should just believe it. (And by the way, as a current grad student, I can tell you that a professor having a degree does not necessarily make him/her an expert or even reliable.)

More primary to the argument though is, can we repudiate what is said? I haven't read the book so I can't argue specifics but I think even a cursory look into Constitutional law would show that there is no way a President could claim more power than monarch as the courts would certainly move against him.

Consider the Schiavo case, if Bush had SO MUCH power, then he certainly could have stepped in and "saved" this one life, right? The courts blocked his wish. That wouldn't happen in a monarchy. The Democrats would also not be able to threaten a fillibuster if Bush had the power of a monarch. We could go on, but I think even a basic understanding of the American political system debunks the very premise of the book.

More appropriately, can the Professor prove anything that HE is claiming? Whatever that is.

To the original post:

Uh huh. And which one of the Princesses do you suppose will rise to the throne on his eventual demise? Get real

Yeah, it's not like he has any brothers in politics.

You're just jealous because the colonists booted the concept of monarchy . Uh uh, ain't gonna happen. It was a stretch that had no reach.

Uh.... okay?

Okay Boh....

WHAT THE ###### ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?!?!?!