[hchutch]

Well then, take it up with them.

Quite frankly, there is nothing in that document that is remotely against the Constitution. Congress declared war on Iraq - TWICE - by passing resolutions authorizing the President to use military force against Iraq (that is, essentially, what WAR is). They declared war against any group involved in the attacks of September 11, and any nation that aided them or was harboring them.

The Constituion gave the Congress and the President the power to conduct foreign policy. Both affirmatively (see various clauses in Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2) and by forbidding actions to the States (Article I, Section 10).

There is NOTHING I have read that FORBIDS the federal government to pursue a foreign policy avenue along the lines of what PNAC proposed on June 3, 1997. NOTHING AT ALL. Foreign policy is decided by the President, with Congress having the ability to prohibit the expenditure of funds for policies it may disapprove of, albeit such prohibitions in funding are subject to a presidential veto.

Show me where their foreign policy proposals are prohibited in the Constitution, if you can. Either of you two.

[Stultis]

Show me where their foreign policy proposals are prohibited in the Constitution, if you can. Either of you two.

That would be the interpretation that falsely assumes the authors of The Constitution meant to shackle us to the conditions of America (as a minor power) that happened to prevail in the 18th Century. Truth be known there're probably a few who fantasize about a cultural revolution of some sort returning us to an agrarian nation of yoeman farmers.

[sheltonmac]

Foreign policy is decided by the President...

Show me where [PNAC] foreign policy proposals are prohibited in the Constitution, if you can.

Show me where in the Constitution the president is given the authority to dictate foreign policy. The president's primary charge is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," not use the military as his own personal tool for implementing foreign policy.

The U.S. military was originally intended for defending the nation against attack. That purpose has been twisted by groups like the PNAC to include pre-emptive strikes against nations that haven't taken hostile action against us. (And, in case you've forgotten, 9/11 was not an Iraqi attack.)

The problem with the PNAC is that it calls for military action without a constitutionally mandated declaration of war. Congressional resolutions authorizing a "use of force" are not declarations of war, no matter what you tell yourself to help you sleep better at night. It is the responsibility of Congress to declare a state of war between the U.S. and another foreign power, and to then have the president use his position as commander in chief to prosecute that war to its conclusion. It is unconstitutional for Congress to simply pass the buck and grant war-making powers to the president. That would be handing the president a blank check to cash whenever he wants, and the framers of the Constitution never intended for him to have that kind of power.

You may feel comfortable with one man having virtually complete autonomous control over the most powerful military in the world, but I'm not. Sure, your conscience may be eased having someone "moral" and "principled" like Bush in the White House, but what about someone like Hillary Clinton in charge? I'd be willing to bet that you'd be singing a different tune.