[goMac]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/op...=1&oref=slogin

"Many critics of the Iraq war are reluctant to suggest that President Bush went into it in anything but good faith. But James Madison, widely known as the father of the Constitution, might have been more skeptical. “In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed,” he warned. “It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle.”

When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress."

This is a huge misconception I see all the time. A lot of people on the right seem to think the power to declare war rests with the President. It doesn't. The power to control our wars actually rests with the Congress.

"The Constitution does make the president “commander in chief,” a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be “nothing more” than “first general and admiral,” responsible for “command and direction” of military forces.

The founders would have been astonished by President Bush’s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congress’s control over spending as “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”"

And again, the article addresses another common misunderstanding. Bush being commander in chief does not give him power to declare wars. He's simply a military commander. He has about enough power to declare war as one of our generals does.

I know this has been addressed in other threads, but it just bothers me how the right will scream and moan about how Congress is bending the rules and getting in the way. Congress is actually doing exactly what was intended of them when the constitution was written. This article seems to sum this up perfectly.

[Rumor]

Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United…

[Dakarʒ]

The important thing to remember here is that the congress is to blame here -- they effectively ceded their power to the President's long ago. The democrats have reminded us of that power constantly -- through their challenges regarding the funding.

[Chuckit]

This post seems to be written as though Congress had actually legally required him to go back and he were illegally ignoring them. In fact, Congress has failed to get the required number of votes to force a withdrawal, so the fact that the power rests with Congress is kind of immaterial, isn't it?

[Dakarʒ]

Well, yeah, it does make any attempt to take back that power unfeasible at this time. But the point I was trying to make was more about [precedent?] than anything else.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

This post seems to be written as though Congress had actually legally required him to go back and he were illegally ignoring them. In fact, Congress has failed to get the required number of votes to force a withdrawal, so the fact that the power rests with Congress is kind of immaterial, isn't it?

No. Funding could be withdrawn, but this won't happen. Congress has power, but is largely invertebrate. (I'm neither advocating nor opposing withdrawal - that's a whole other discussion. I'm only pointing to this as an example of the relevance of their power).

The administration has pushed to expand the powers of the executive branch in many areas (this trend is neither new nor limited to the Iraq cluster****), and they've succeeded in large part because the other pillars of government have allowed it. This includes Congress, which doesn't use the tools of checks and balances that the Constitution provides.

[Big Mac]

“In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed.” That really sounds like a great description of Bush's popularity from the war in Iraq.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

This post seems to be written as though Congress had actually legally required him to go back and he were illegally ignoring them. In fact, Congress has failed to get the required number of votes to force a withdrawal, so the fact that the power rests with Congress is kind of immaterial, isn't it?

Actually that's not true. Congress did pass a Iraq spending bill that required a withdrawal as part of it's terms, and Bush vetoed it. It's of course in Bush's power to veto it, but the right has still been whining about how Congress is just playing games and isn't supposed to be doing things like that.

Congress could however issue a binding resolution and force a withdrawal without attaching it to a spending bill, but they haven't found the balls to do something like that.

[Sky Captain]

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

And I talked to 15,000 plus the mites in the carpet that said it didn't happen.

[ebuddy]

The thread title should've read; "An Imperial President Goes To War Against an Imperial Globe"

Right, Left... bla,bla,bla. The Congress cannot "control" a war ladies and gentleman. They control funding. If they opt not to control the funding of action, they control absolutely nothing. Furthermore, the whining from "the Right" is no more reprehensible than the whining from "the Left". Sometimes I wish we weren't so friggin' myopic around here.

So... how do you all attain World Peace?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right, Left... bla,bla,bla. The Congress cannot "control" a war ladies and gentleman. They control funding. If they opt not to control the funding of action, they control absolutely nothing. Furthermore, the whining from "the Right" is no more reprehensible than the whining from "the Left". Sometimes I wish we weren't so friggin' myopic around here.

Yes, congress can "control" the war. The President can issue orders to troops on the field, but Congress can withdraw the troops from the field. The President is a tactical commander with regards to the military, all other powers are delegate to the Congress.

Remember the days when the President had to ask Congress to go to war?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

And I talked to 15,000 plus the mites in the carpet that said it didn't happen.

I'm not saying it's true or not. If it isn't, then it's probably dribble from a hardcore anti-bush zealot. If it's true, then it's quite frightening.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Remember the days when the President had to ask Congress to go to war?

remember the days we actually declared war?

[peeb]

When was the last war that was declared? I mean apart from the War on Science, and the War on Drugs etc.

[black bear theory]

June 5, 1942

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Yes, congress can "control" the war. The President can issue orders to troops on the field, but Congress can withdraw the troops from the field. The President is a tactical commander with regards to the military, all other powers are delegate to the Congress.

No, Congress cannot "control" the war. They control the purse for the war and to a limited degree. Congress cannot withdraw troops, but they can specify that no funds be used for A or B. There are ways around this and they've been perfected over 100 years.

Remember the days when the President had to ask Congress to go to war?

Remember the House Joint Resolution authorizing the use of U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq in October of 2002? An imperialist President goes to war against an imperialist globe. An imperialist House and Senate full of (R)s approved it and now the imperialist House and Senate full of (D)s will ensure we keep funding it. Why? Politicin' of course son we've got an election looming overhead. Neither will touch the resolution and neither will cut off funds for the war to a legally terminable degree. By the way, have you seen the massive Embassy we're building in Iraq?

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right, Left... bla,bla,bla. The Congress cannot "control" a war ladies and gentleman.

Exactly. We have an inept commander in chief who insists on staying a disastrous course, and there is really no recourse. There's no way Congress can control the war; it's politically impossible, not something that can be done by hundreds of people.

Basically Congress can either force a withdrawal, or it can stand by as thousands more die and our national security is further eroded, until a competent president is elected. Neither is a good choice, though, because withdrawing is also harmful.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Exactly. We have an inept commander in chief who insists on staying a disastrous course, and there is really no recourse. There's no way Congress can control the war; it's politically impossible, not something that can be done by hundreds of people.

We live on a disastrous globe. We "stayed the course" on prior "disastrous" policy for over 12 years and that didn't work either.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We live on a disastrous globe. We "stayed the course" on prior "disastrous" policy for over 12 years and that didn't work either.

The economic sanctions were nearly as murderous as the current endeavour.

For the last 16 years, Iraq's population felt the punishment of the US, actually add eight more years to it, the Iraq-Iran-war, after the US ordered Saddam to invade Iran, you can also add to it the years that Iraq is living under the CIA-installed Baath-regime...

Obviously there is a long intimate Sado-Maso-relationship between the US and Iraq, in which Iraq was always at the receiving end of the stick.

Taliesin

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by tie 

Exactly. We have an inept commander in chief who insists on staying a disastrous course, and there is really no recourse.

The Saudis and OPEC control the White House's war. If the US didn't go to war then those who fund terrorism would simply escalate attacks until the US gave in. Terrorism and instability makes the price of oil go up. War makes the price of oil go up. War+terrorism causes prices to rockets. And who laughs all the way to the bank?

This isn't a Republican vs Democrat issue. Kerry, Gore or Hilary would do the same in response to an attack. They have no choice until there is an alternative fuel source than makes blackmail from OPEC leaders redundant.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

For the last 16 years, Iraq's population felt the punishment of the US, actually add eight more years to it, the Iraq-Iran-war, after the US ordered Saddam to invade Iran, you can also add to it the years that Iraq is living under the CIA-installed Baath-regime...

This is nonsense. Anti-western lies in an attempt to spread more hate and make Arabs look like their are always someone's victim.

1. The Iraqi Ba'ath Party rose to power in Iraq with Syrian support. The CIA had no hand in it.
2. Iraq was not ordered to invade Iran.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tie 

Exactly. We have an inept commander in chief who insists on staying a disastrous course, and there is really no recourse. There's no way Congress can control the war; it's politically impossible, not something that can be done by hundreds of people.

Basically Congress can either force a withdrawal, or it can stand by as thousands more die and our national security is further eroded, until a competent president is elected. Neither is a good choice, though, because withdrawing is also harmful.

You win hyperbole post of the day. Seriously tie. The sky isn't falling.