Is Bush getting power mad??

sarcasm (sar·casm; noun ): remarks that mean the opposite of what they seem to say and are intended to mock or deride

Appreciation, or even recognition, of sarcasm is clearly dying on TFL. :D
 
gc70, some of us understood fully what you meant.

FirstFreedom, in case you forgot, the entire Congress gave explicit authority to Bush to wage war with Iraq.

There are enough Dems in Congress (both Houses) to simply refuse to pass any appropriations for the military. Or to make sure that any such appropriations they do pass, does not contain funding for the Iraq war.

It is that simple.

It is also not what they have done. Whatever else the Dems are saying, whatever else they claim as a mandate from the last election, they have caved to the Bush Administration.
 
Not the least of which is engaging in a war without Congressional approval.
Click to expand...
You might want to do a little research on that. Congress approved military action through a vote
Maybe this will jog your memory

"I voted for the war, before I voted against it...
 
There was no formal declaration of war. Just as Vietnam wasn't a war, merely a conflict. Wait... Oh yeah, that pesky Constitution is after all only a stupid piece of paper. Never mind... Move along, move along. Nothing to see here.
 
"Just as long as you're OK with a future Democrat president having the same power..."

Exactly what power are you referring to? It appears to be a decent attempt at setting forth a process of running the country during an emergency.

It's not like President Bush invented the presedential fiat.

Here's one quote googled up at random that touches upon a number of examples. Feel free to delve into the history of executive orders.

"In 1978, a select bipartisan Senate committee identified 500 existing laws that take effect when a president declares an emergency by executive order. Such laws include vast powers to seize property, commodities, fuel and minerals; organize and control the means of production, including compulsory job assignments for civilians; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law and force civilian relocation; seize and control all forms of transportation and restrict travel; seize communications and health facilities; regulate operation of private enterprise; require national registration through the postal service or otherwise control citizens' lives.

Congress terminated all four emergencies under review at the time and set up a new system of annual renewals to preclude perpetual states of emergency. The gesture turned out to be hollow. On Nov. 14, 1979, President Carter declared the next emergency during the Iran hostage crisis, and it still is in effect -- along with 13 other national emergencies. Executive orders renewing emergency declarations have become routine paperwork.

"Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has essentially ruled over time that the executive orders have the force and effect of law," says Rep. Jack Metcalf, Washington Republican, leader of a rebellion currently brewing in the House. "Well, they don't, but if nobody's there to challenge them they continue to carry the effect and force of law.""

____________

Executive orders may or may not be the best thing for the country, but they've been with us since George Washington. I don't understand why all of a sudden they're news. Well, maybe I do. ;)

John
 
Slugthrower (and anybody else), just where in the Constitution does it formalize how the Congress goes about declaring war?

Here's a clue: It doesn't.
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Click to expand...
That's all it says. It mentions nothing about any formalized declaration.
 
Nope it sure doesn't. Congress still didn't declare war. They "Authorized the use of force" There wasn't a country to declare war upon. This "War on Terror", is a "police action" on a tactic. "The War on Terror" has no foreseeable end. There is nothing to be concerned about, our masters will take care of us.
 
Antipitas, I think you are right - the joint resolution, not being an ACT of Congress, would at first blush seem not to be enough to satisfy the constitution. But as you say, the Constitution give Congress the power "to declare war" - it does not specify whether such a declaration should come in the form of an ACT or a RESOLUTION. A "resolution", being similar in definition (though not exactly the same), to "declaration", would seem to probably be constitutionally sufficient. So I withrdraw my earlier accusation pending further research. :)
 
Let's get one thing straight between us, shall we? I don't like Bush.

But I will uphold the Constitution.

When the Congress authorizes the use of force against another country (both explicitly Iraq and Afghanistan) or an actionable group of people (terrorists or Pirates from Tripoly), that is as "formal" a declaration of war as the Constitution requires.

You, and many others do not see it that way, I understand that. You, and many others, are just plain wrong in this matter. Authorizing the use of force (by the Army/Navy/Marines/Air Force) against another country or some group of people, is an overt act of War. It can not be anything else.
 
They "Authorized the use of force" There wasn't a country to declare war upon. This "War on Terror", is a "police action" on a tactic.
Click to expand...
You might want to research that also
Congress specifically authorized the use of force including military force against Iraq not a tactic
 
The president cannot grant himself new powers, so either this is functionally void, or else it is unconstitutional.

The broad language pointed out by badbob indicates that this is an attempt by Bush Jr. to grant himself new powers without anyone complaining too loudly. Not even Congress could pass a law granting the president such broad powers (for the same reason the line-item veto was found unconstitutional).

The president gets unchecked power only in situations so catastrophic and/or requiring such immediate action that the rest of the government can't properly respond. The list of conditions in this directive is not sufficiently narrow, and even if they were, the entire thing would be unnecessary. Bush doesn't need any such declaration to take charge during a real emergency.

This seems like an attempt to soften the public (if they need any softening) into believing that martial law is in accord with Constitutional government, simply because it was planned for during a time of Constitutional government. It is not. Martial law is supposed to be a temporary suspension of the usual mode of government in order to carry a region through a crisis. Treating it as anything else serves to legitimize martial law under less-than-emergency conditions.

Even under martial law, the military is not supposed to be changing diapers. They are supposed to maintain general order while the crisis is averted so ordinary government can resume. Any "planning" for martial law indicates that the executive is planning to do things outside the scope of keeping general order and restoring the functionality of the other branches of government.


johnbt said:
Dang, we need somebody in there who just plain don't care. Any of you guys running for office?
Click to expand...
Impossible. A large majority of the population will only vote for a candidate who promises to change their diapers and protect them from big bad wolves.
 
"There is, however, one thing that Lincoln did that is not often mentioned. After the Supreme Court gave their decision, Lincoln made the following remark to them and about their ruling: It's their judgement, let them enforce it. (paraphrased)"


You sure that was Lincoln that said that, Antipitas?

Andrew Jackson wanted to move the Cherokees west off their valuable lands in the Carolinas.

The Cherokees sued, and won when the Supreme Court ruled that the forced eviction was illegal.

Jackson reportedly said that the Court had made its ruling, it should enforce it.

What happened next was the Trail of Tears.

I don't believe that Lincoln ever said anything similar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top