Posted on 03/20/2007 11:30:37 PM PDT by freedomdefender
I don't understand, either, because Rayburn allowed an undeclared "Democrat war" - Vietnam - to go on and on and on. Those were the days when Republicans were known for standing up for the Constitution, and condemning Democrats for entering into wars without clear Congressional approval as demanded by the Constitution. (An no, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was not a constitutionally sufficient statement of congressional approval for a decade-long war).
If Israel launches a preemptive attack on Iran who bears moral responsibility for that?
If Iran launches a preemptive attack (actually, a first strike) on Israel, who bears moral responsibility for that?
BTW isn't "preemption" a defensive move? The kind everyone wishes they could have done, in 20-20 hindsight?
A war waged by Washington and Adams as well. And, of course, financed (authorized) by Congress. I understand some years in the late 1890s comprising up to 20% of our budget. And ended by a treaty, actually including several treaties which were broken. My guess in a era willing to rely on common sense, attacks on American citizens, even thousands of miles away, was enough to establish a state of war.
Instead of engaging strawmen, you have to make the case that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, and if it is it's an unconstitutional imposition on Presidential powers, not Congress who passed it, or that somehow an exception for Iran and Iran only is warranted. The latter being Pat's arguement.
Goldwater and a lot of Republican luminaries said it was unconstitutional. Who am I disagree.
Tell us how you really feel... < / s>
"It's them pesky JOOOOOZZZZZZZZZ!"
Seriesly, I never thought that I'd see PJB agree with anything in the pages of "The Nation."
Mark
So did Nixon, he vetoed it.
But as a usurpation of Congressional power as Pat contends, I don't think so. As a usurpation of Presidential power, yes, though they didn't prevail.
I'm sure they'd a reduction in time to 24 hours for Iran was a further erosion. Of the Commander in Chiefs power, not of Congress' power to authorize war.
I'm seeing some on here make arguments that should be anathema to conservatives ... "times have changed since the Constitution was adopted," etc.
We cannot adopt strict constructionism just when it suits our purpose. Nor can we take a position that makes sense when "our guy" is in the White House but that would cause us fear and trembling if Hillary were CIC.
Others have put forward some valid points about military actions of the early presidents.
At any rate, I think it's an issue that deserves dispassionate discussion ... which is not likely to happen on a Pat thread.
Yes, that troubles me too. This is what the judicial activists argue. We must substitute the "living Constitution" for the real one that Madison and the Founding Fathers gave us. Sad day when that argument becomes the "conservative" argument.
How's this for dispassionate discussion on a Pat thread.
Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, essentially limiting the President to a 60/90 day window to conduct actions as Commander in Chief. Congress did that. It's not an abuse of Congressional Power. And it is the law of the land. If Congress want's to change it, they pass another law. Yes, the President can veto it, as Nixon did. But Congress didn't usurp their own power.
As a Constitutional question, the only issue I've seen raised is the exact opposite, that it's a usurpation of the President's power as Commander in Chief, but that's never prevailed.
So we operate under a law essentially giving the President a 60/90 day window to operate without specific Congressional approval, approval having been granted in the WPR.
It's a non issue.
The only legislative question this article, and the Webb amendment raise is whether special consideration should be given to an attack on Iran, as opposed to an attack on any other nation.
An arguement that the 60/90 day period and reporting requirements should be shortened can be made, I'd disagree, but it's not a Constitutional issue, that's been settled.
The girl who got away? Or turned him down?
Well, she just surprised-the-hell outa me, and probably pissed-off murtha to the max!
No kudos, though. She's still a rat! ................ FRegards
Maybe it's really "Buek Hannan"?
Ping...
[I]t was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on Iran... "Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview there is a widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which ... has expressed unremitting hostility to the Jewish state. "'It would take away perhaps the most important tool the U.S. has when it comes to Iran,' she said of the now-abandoned provision." ...Now Pelosi has, in effect, ceded Bush carte blanche to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. It's all up to him and Cheney... Why did Pelosi capitulate? Answer: She was "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)," writes Nichols.Jackboot Pat helps people keep American politics in perspective -- the extreme wings are all one thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.