Posted on 09/11/2007 10:52:54 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
I was unaware that John Quincy Adams had some kind of constitutional prerogative to legislate through his speeches.
If the US' national interests require the destruction of foreign tyrannies, I'm not sure why our hands would be tied constitutionally by the personal opinions of a bitter oppositionist from 1821.
You'll be paying for this farce will you? Because I'm sick and tired of it.
Yet you're not sick and tired of the peace and security our armed forces provide. Fascinating.
Why even bother going to Congress at all? We'll just make our 'dear leader' above the law then shall we?
The US Constitution invests the Executive with certain prerogatives and gives him power equivalent (but not identical) to Congress and the Judiciary.
The President does not need to go begging to the Congress for permission every time he makes an executive decision any more than the Congress need to go hat in hand to the President for his blessing in making laws.
This is one of the main objectives the Framers had in constructing our Constitution.
Because other than Dr. Paul, there's not a snowball's chance a hawk will get elected.
I'm not sure why you say "other than Dr. Paul", since Paul is neither a hawk nor does he stand any chance of being elected.
Gotcha. Screw the Framers. Washington, Adams, all of them. Wasn't in the document so by default it's a power of the federal government...oh that's right it's not.
Yet you're not sick and tired of the peace and security our armed forces provide. Fascinating.
Yes I can't tell you how worried I've been over the years the Germans were going to rise up and start the Fourth Reich overnight....or the Somalians were all going to come 'over here'.
The US Constitution invests the Executive with certain prerogatives and gives him power equivalent (but not identical) to Congress and the Judiciary.
Fascinating. I've read the Constitution a few times. And for the life of me, I can't find 95% of what the idiots (of both parties) in the Executive Branch have been doing for the last 150 years.
The President does not need to go begging to the Congress for permission every time he makes an executive decision any more than the Congress need to go hat in hand to the President for his blessing in making laws.
I see. Asking for a Declaration of War is 'begging to Congress'. How dare one man ask 435 others if it would be a good thing for this nation to go to war. Well as long as it's the 'right' party. Now if it's the 'wrong' party, they better ask right? And mysteriously even after bombing of a major military installation (blowback from foreign policy but we'll not bother eh?), the socialist FDR was able to go to Congress, ask for, and receive a formal declaration of war. Not some open-ended resolution for a war on a tactic.
I'm not sure why you say "other than Dr. Paul", since Paul is neither a hawk nor does he stand any chance of being elected
I say that because if you believe the majority of the general public supports continuing this farce, I'm not the one in lala land. Whoever wins will win on the premise of the intent of bringing the forces home now rather than later. Whether or not the Iraqis feel safe and secure.
Apparently you are unaware that John Quincy Adams and John Adams are not the same person and that young JQ Adams was not in any possible twisting of the word a Framer of the Constitution.
Wasn't in the document so by default it's a power of the federal government...oh that's right it's not.
The Constitution places command of America's armed forces in the hands of the Executive, not a cranky, self-appointed overlord who is actually a Congressional backbencher.
Yes I can't tell you how worried I've been over the years the Germans were going to rise up and start the Fourth Reich overnight....or the Somalians were all going to come 'over here'.
You unintentionally cast into sharp relief one of the finest attributes of America's fighting forces - that they defend all Americans, despite the crass ingratitude of many of their beneficiaries.
Fascinating. I've read the Constitution a few times. And for the life of me, I can't find 95% of what the idiots (of both parties) in the Executive Branch have been doing for the last 150 years.
It's not my fault you are unable to construe the Constitution rationally.
Asking for a Declaration of War is 'begging to Congress'.
Of course not - a very feeble attempt at rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Congress authorizes the use of the America's fighting forces, and the Executive then uses them as he sees fit.
the socialist FDR was able to go to Congress, ask for, and receive a formal declaration of war. Not some open-ended resolution for a war on a tactic.
Congress' declaration of war on the Axis powers was far more open-ended and vague than Congress' authorization for the use of force against Iraq.
The President asked Congress for far less in 2003 than the President asked for in 1941.
A laughable analogy that militates against your own rhetoric.
I say that because if you believe the majority of the general public supports continuing this farce, I'm not the one in lala land.
We are a republic governed by laws, not a plebiscitary democracy governed by polls.
If you believe that the Constitution contemplated a government based on a show of hands, you need to reread it yet another time.
“These socialists are hell bent on his removal as a candidate. “
Which socialists are you talking about? Say perhaps, the ones at DemocraticUnderground that are arranging crowds to support him at meetup.com?
“Which socialists are you talking about? Say perhaps, the ones at DemocraticUnderground that are arranging crowds to support him at meetup.com?”
They might be at DU. I don’t know since I don’t go there. Obviously you do if you know this is occuring at DU.
At any rate, they can’t be socialists and support RP. If so, they would be truly retarded socialists to cast their votes to RP. Are you aware of any socialistic agenda that RP endorses?
Now if some RP campaigners have signed up at DU and are actively attempting to recruit support from DU members, God bless them. I wish them luck.
How’s it going for them?
For the majority of his term, Jorge had a Pubbie house and senate, yet he was phenominally ineffective in putting forth conservative policies. The democrat controlled congress is hardly an excuse for him now.
Please forgive me for not quite understanding your post quoted here.
GWB WAS effective at certain things, most of which we conservatives did not agree with: the No Child Left Behind Act, which is a disaster, his push toward globalism, etc.
When I reminded you about the fact that there is now a democrat-controlled House and Senate, and at least part of the blame for that can be laid squarely at the feet of GWB, I was not trying to "make excuses" for him.
o.k. I misunderstood you. (happens all the time unfortunately)
I guess I'm a little sensitive to the Bushbots around here making excuses for him.
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.