The OmbudsGod has something outright odd - or as our Ozzie cousins might say, "gobsmackin nuts." The Seattle Post-Intelligencer "made the astonishing declaration that: 'The constitutional standard for warfare is for the United States to face a 'clear and present danger.''" When called on this Constitutional emanation by Shark Blog the editorial page editor offered a series of explanations that were, to put it mildly, "uninformed."

I made the point in the comments that the only place that the term "clear and present danger" has a constitutional significance is with respect to the suppression of speech based on its content and the circumstances in which the speech occurs. Taranto at OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today has it absolutely right:

It's true that "clear and present danger" is a constitutional standard, and it's even true that it arose from a wartime case. Only it is not "the constitutional standard for warfare" but for free speech. In Shenck v. U.S. (1919), the court upheld the conviction of a Socialist draft resister for distributing leaflets encouraging draftees to evade service. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote for the court that the conviction was constitutional because the distribution of the leaflets created "a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent"--namely draft evasion.

The PI has obviously stumbled into a gaffe of epic stupidity, prompting damnum absque injuria (yet another obscurely Latin titled blog) to pithily observe: "Ignoring the popular saying "[i]f you are in a hole, stop digging."" Damnum - or as we know him by his Christian name, "XRLQ," or formally, "Mr. XRLQ," has done a nice take down on the precise legal arguments offered by the PI. Check it out.