Senators-in-Chief ....(Congress has no Constitutional power to micromanage a war)

WSJ Opinion Journal ^ | Thursday, January 25, 2007 | Editorial

[Rummyfan]

I received two - two! - letters from the RNC yesterday. I haven't opened them yet, still formulating a response.

[Rummyfan]

One of the most outrageous things I think I have ever seen was John Warner daring to admonish General Petraeus for giving an honest (and obvious) answer to a fair question.

That was pathetic! Gen Petraeus is a West Pointer - he's not going to lie to spare a politcian's feelings! Further, Warner couldn't handle the truth! Yes I said...

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

[EternalVigilance]

One executive that is afraid to exercise his sworn duty: to witness, Terry Schiavo and "Campaign Finance Reform."

535 executive wannabes, too busy trying to be their own little president to attend to the pressing business of the country.

9 robed judicial legislators.

Well, I'm certainly being too harsh, because somewhere in those numbers are a handful who understand the separation of powers, the dangers of the doctrine of judicial supremacy, and the true constitutional role of each branch.

But, this situation is most definitely out of control.

[IrishMike]

Well, I'm certainly being too harsh, because somewhere in those numbers are a handful who understand the separation of powers, the dangers of the doctrine of judicial supremacy, and the true constitutional role of each branch.

.
.
.
.
Those are entirely too few.

[Bahbah]

Here is my email to Senator Warner, which he won't read, of course.

"Dear Senator Warner:

I was treated to the spectacle yesterday of you admonishing a three star general in the United States Army for giving a truthful answer to a fair question.

Of course your horrid resolution will harm our military and our efforts in the long, hard battle we are going to have to fight, whether you find it inconvenient or not.

Presumably you understand this, but are willing to proceed for your own political purposes, and that is why you found it so painful to hear it spoken to your face. My goodness, what does that say about you!

In disgust,
*****

[Rockiette]

Just watched Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Ne) deride the President's plan to send more troops. His mind is a pile of mush, I can't believe people in Nebraska would keep such an unintelligent and uneducated politician as their Senator. He had no answers, only the time worn statement that the Iraqis must "step up" and put Sadr and other insurgents out of business. What the hell does he think the President wants and all the other bright Americans who support our troops. These Senators should, in all haste, be accused of treason and every damn one of them, impeached! This old jackass has, because of his inept laziness and sloppy sense of entitlement, decided to stiff his Country and his Military by throwing around his political weight and continue to side with the anti-American crew of DumbocRATS. By running away from terror, these Senators are damning us to terror in America instead of fighting them over there.

[goldstategop]

What the Senators favored then they oppose now. Life's funny when people who voted for a war duck their responsibility to see it through. Our President isn't doing that precisely because he understands better than any one in America what the consequences of failure would bode for the United States in Iraq.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[AFPhys]

To understand why the Founders put war powers in the hands of the Presidency, look no further than the current spectacle in Congress on Iraq.

BINGO!

[Col Sanders]

Prima facie, the article is incorrect.

The word "war" only appears four times in the Constitution - twice to tell states what they can't do, once to define treason, and once to grant the power to declare war - That power is delegated NOT to the executive, but to the judiciary.

The executive may make war only upon the direction of the legisative branch and he conducts that war at their discretion. To argue otherwise is, to paraphrase many people around here who don't know what they're talking about, to believe that our Constitution is a suicide pact. These people would argue that once a declaration of war is given, it cannot be rescinded unless the president says it's over.

Nothing could be further from the truth, or further from what the founders intended, notwithstanding the opinion of the article's author.

Regards,

Col Sanders

[IrishMike]

And once declared, who manages the war ?

The commander in Chief
or
The legisative branch

..."The executive may make war only upon the direction of the legisative branch and he conducts that war at their discretion".......

[Col Sanders]

As I said, the executive conducts war at the legislature's discretion. Despite what anyone may believe, and despite how bastardized the system may have become over the years, the "civilian control" over the military belongs to congress, not the president. It is congress, not the president, is delegated the power to raise armies and navies and call forth the militia. The military does their bidding by following the orders of the president, who executes the orders of congress.

The founders viewed the power to make war to be one of the most abused powers of a king - Used most often to keep the people in a constant state of conflict and therefore unable to rebel or better their stations in life. As such, they tried to make sure that power was not vested in a single individual. Instead, they locked that power into the legislature in an attempt to guarantee that all wars entered into by this country would be supported by the people through their representatives.

I imagine they believed that any war prosecuted without significant popular support would be fraught with problems for those attempting to do it such that the problems themselves would be a deterrent.

Seems they were right in the former and wrong on the latter...

Regards,

Col Sanders

[dr_who_2]

I wonder how much luck Prime Minister Pelosi will have compared to former Prime Minister Newt, even if this is Bush's last two years in office.

[ARA]

just call them and tell them...