First, the Constitution. It provides for one commander-in-chief, not 536. A determined president can evade all but the tightest congressional attempts to override his military decisions, and any sufficiently tight congressional strictures are likely to emasculate the presidency and fracture the Congress.
Uh-hunh. The Constitution also gives Congress, not the President, the power to declare war. It also gives Congress, not the President, the power of appropriations. It designates the President as "Commander in Chief" of the armed forces of the United States, but it says nothing to imply that the President may assume dictatorial powers, abrogate the Constitution, or ignore the will of Congress or the people during war.
You'd think that that might give Congress a voice in what was going on in Iraq and elsewhere American forces are deployed in conflicts.
You'd think so...
posted on 01/22/2007 11:34:11 AM PST
by Map Kernow
("I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just..." ---Thomas Jefferson)
To: Map Kernow
Congress only wants a voice when it's safe to voice the opinion. Why do you think they tried so hard to push off the Iraq vote until after the 2002 elections?
The problem with Democrats today is that they're being held to their vote in 2002, and that vote was held before the mid-term elections. Can you imagine what things would be like if Congress were able to wait until after November 2002 to vote on Iraq?
To: Map Kernow
Congress was tasked with the call and they made the choice to defer the call to the President. That is what the Use of Force Resolution was all about. For anyone to say Congress had no choice is to present a pathetic lie .
Congress has always kept the power to pull the funding as the check and balance on the Executive. Both parties have been in control of Congress now and neither has pulled funding. If this action was so wrong as some say, then funding would have been pulled as the first order of business in this Congress. The fact it was not is quite telling. It shows that the action does not match the rhetoric.
You might care to take note of the War Powers act as well. You know, the one passed by Congress. Maybe you could help me out with something. Who would Congress declare war on in the traditional sense? Why isn't the Majority party declaring war this very minute? In the absence of that, why are they not eliminating funding this very minute?
posted on 01/25/2007 1:55:01 PM PST
by Just sayin
(Is is what it is, for if it was anything else, it would be isn't.)
To: Map Kernow
While yes the Congress does the the power of appropriations, there is nothing in the contitution giving it the right to make policy via appropriation. That, however, is exactly what the congress has done for years upon years.
In theory, the Congress should approve a budget for the DoD, and it should be up to the President and his executives to administer said budget. To infer that congress must agree with every policy decision of the executive would give them rights of micromanagement, far beyond their contitutional role of advice and consent.
posted on 01/25/2007 2:08:15 PM PST
(Feed the Tree .....)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson