Posted on 01/31/2019 10:04:39 AM PST by Be Careful
Frustrated Republicans say it’s time for the Senate to reclaim more power over foreign policy and are planning to move a measure Thursday that would be a stunning rebuke to a president of their own party.
GOP lawmakers are deeply concerned over President Trump’s reluctance to listen to his senior military and intelligence advisers, fearing it could erode national security. They say the Senate has lost too much of its constitutional power over shaping the nation’s foreign policy and argue that it’s time to begin clawing some of it back.
“Power over foreign policy has shifted to the executive branch over the last 30 years. Many of us in the Senate want to start taking it back,” said a Republican senator closely allied with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
They plan to send Trump a stern admonishment by voting Thursday afternoon on an amendment sponsored by McConnell warning “the precipitous withdrawal” of U.S. forces from Syria and Afghanistan “could put at risk hard-won gains and United States national security.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Last time I looked, the constitution said that the president is the commander in chief, NOT the Senate.
I guess they consider it a living breathing ever changing document.
For example, your #5 mentions eliminating expensive elections, but that would just move the money influence to the respective state assemblies in order to effect the same outcome. Secondly, you seem to be assuming that the 50 states are somehow operating independently - thus creating 50 possible outcomes - when in actuality they operate under the same two party system. That means not 50 states & organizing committees, but the same two parties simply focused on their assemblies.
Ultimately, the problem isn't really written words, but people. The 2A says what it says, and yet it's still infringed. You could repeal the 17th, but the corruption would remain unchanged. You're putting a lot of faith on a piece of paper, but it's only effect is who happens to be doing the interpreting & enforcement.
“They have none other than to advise and consent to Treaties. It’s right there in the Constitution. Maybe they should read it sometime.”
_________________________________________________________________________
That is a most excellent idea.
They abdicated their duty on that also. Such was the case in 1993 when they refused to ratify the UN Agenda 21 treaty, then sat and watched as Clinton began implementation of it it by Ex. Order 12852. They also sat and watched as Clinton and Obama continued to incorporate it into govt. policy.
BTW, this “Green New Deal” is nothing more than furthering the Agenda 21/Sustainable Development Plan which is already official govt. policy per numerous EO’s and various legislation.
Why are they afraid to call it by its real name?
“They have none other than to advise and consent to Treaties. It’s right there in the Constitution. Maybe they should read it sometime.”
_________________________________________________________________________
That is a most excellent idea.
They abdicated their duty on that also. Such was the case in 1993 when they refused to ratify the UN Agenda 21 treaty, then sat and watched as Clinton began implementation of it it by Ex. Order 12852. They also sat and watched as Clinton and Obama continued to incorporate it into govt. policy.
BTW, this “Green New Deal” is nothing more than furthering the Agenda 21/Sustainable Development Plan which is already official govt. policy per numerous EO’s and various legislation.
Why are they afraid to call it by its real name?
Each state is different. They have different economies, different geographies, different weather, different natural resources, different histories, and different motivators.
I don't think it's as simple as saying that the parties drive each state uniformly. How can we have such different state behaviors between California and West Virginia, for example? Even between Texas and Indiana, one an oil and cattle state and one a coal state.
Agricultural versus industrial, high-tech versus education, tourism versus financial.
Each state has a self-interest that will drive negotiations with other states if they can retake control of the Senate from the parties.
-PJ
Trumps is going great! let him be!
I think the only thing many of these quislings read is their financial statements.
I still think you're placing entirely too much faith on disparate state and/or regional interests. In actuality, the country is now operating very much similar to the Union vs Confederacy. CA, NY & IL (and their satellites) cooperate (and think) very much in the same manner, with the same goals and objectives vis-a-vis competition with, and the desire to defeat, conservative (red) states.
Secondly, I'm a bit confused why state/regional economic interests would have any bearing from the impact of post-17th dispersed state-wide appointment. All economic sectors benefit from government subsides and direct demand. As to the topic at hand - that is, endless war - there's not a segment of the economy anywhere, in any state, that doesn't benefit from military demand. Oil, coal, food, high-tech - you name it, everyone has a hand in the pie.
The same money flowing from the same special interests would be directed towards a few state representatives is a few potential swing states. Secure 50.1% of 26 states, and the Turtle has got the same exact platform.
Again, it's not a piece of paper with laws, rules & regulations written down that governs conduct. Rather, it's the people themselves and the expectation they demand from representatives. If the people themselves are so entirely co-opted, then the republic is dead, and we're operating in a post-constitutional environment.
I think state legislatures are more likely to select one of their own rather than a beltway creature.
I think a state legislature might choose a "favorite son" industry leader to be Senator if the dominant industry is the main economic driver of the state. They get to select two, so why not pair a legislator with a key business leader?
I think a selected Senator is less likely to assume they will stay in DC for as long as they want or as long as they can fool the distracted voters.
I think that state legislatures need to make Congress align with what the states do. Currently, the states are forced to accommodate what Congress does. Congress does what aligns with party donor bloc interests.
I think that state legislatures work day in and day out on the nitty gritty details of local bills affecting the state voter, and it would be in the best interests of the state voter to let the legislatures select the most knowledgeable and influential people to represent the interests of those bills in Congress.
I think that the logistics of controlling dispersed statehouse politics is far more burdensome than working through few dedicated DC lobby groups managing a few key Senators. Those "leader" Senators who distribute the spoils downward makes it easy. That would go away.
I think a sitting Senator cannot abuse a repealed 17th amendment by refusing to vacate their seats. This is a structural amendment with no wiggle room for interpretation or abuse. If they're not appointed, they go home.
-PJ
Rather, the entire effort of the respective blue states is to increase illegal representation to the extent that it ultimately allows the left unfettered control of national policy. It really is a confederated effort - all the proglibs have to do is turn TX & FL, and it's all over except for the crying.
I get that you still believe and/or have faith in a republican system. But realistically - and anyone from a blue state can confirm - the left doesn't respect you, your ideals or your beliefs. What they do understand is the boot, and how to corrupt the body politic in such as way as to gain (perpetual) power.
Sure, some states are so extreme that nothing will change, but others are not. I respectfully suggest that yours is the tainted view due to how radically extreme California has become.
Still, it's only one state. A Senate composed bottom up from state legislatures will have to deal with the Californias and New Yorks, and they will have to deal with the Texases and Alabamas.
Today, they're all being strangled by Schumer and McConnell. In a repealed 17th amendment Senate, that would be much harder to do.
-PJ
Way to go, Jane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m 762. So before that
I will only vote for President Trump and whomever supports him full voiced in 2020. I am sick of the GOP. Any hedgers will never get my vote or monetary support ever again.
Ding Ding Ding...we have a winner in post #9.
If I could talk as effectively as you Jane, I would be on the phone to McConnell as well.
It’s easy, FRiend.
Simply write down your talking points ahead of time, then read the list to the staffer.
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.