Go take a hike, Senate

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[Guest]

hello. i'd like to take this moment to introduce myself. my name is vella, the decider. In fact, if you would all just bow down to me right now, we can get over this whole awkward introduction business and you can accept me as your deity.

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[Guest]

Okay.

YEHAW! i have a whole nation of....one.

 

[Remec]

hello. i'd like to take this moment to introduce myself. my name is vella, the decider. In fact, if you would all just bow down to me right now, we can get over this whole awkward introduction business and you can accept me as your deity.

*nodding*
*quietly making a list of materials for the shrine to Vella*
I can't say you'd be my only deity. I mean, I tend to be poly in so many ways, y'know? *g*

 

[impressive]

YEHAW! i have a whole nation of....one.

Two.

 

[Guest]

LOL
well, i figure if he can try it, why can't i?

 

[Pure]

i don't think the senate or house are going to try to seriously impede the surge. the Dems will gain a lot when the surge fails.

 

[3113]

i don't think the senate or house are going to try to seriously impede the surge. the Dems will gain a lot when the surge fails.

Bush'll just say that it failed because the Dems weren't behind it. Don't you get it pure? If you don't believe and clap your hands, we fail. It's all your fault!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

hello. i'd like to take this moment to introduce myself. my name is vella, the decider. In fact, if you would all just bow down to me right now, we can get over this whole awkward introduction business and you can accept me as your deity.

Why not. Three.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I have taken a non-binding vote against an all women nation the therefore reject this reality and substitute my own. In my reality all women are place on pedestals so that everyone can enjoy looking up their skirts and/or dresses.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Seriously, somehow we seem to have come to interpret "The Congress shall have Power To declare War" to be not an exclusive power. Instead, the new (unwritten) version goes, "The president shall also have the power to declare war, unless otherwise directed by Congress."

That is pretty dodgy, but we've been operating that way since 1950.

However, one thing hasn't changed: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." Setting aside the preceding, once we are in a war, this is pretty uncompromising language, and it almost certainly includes setting troop levels. Imagine if Congress had said to FDR in 1944, "Actually, we think you should limit the Normandy invasion force to 137,225." Would not have been prudent at that junture.

So, while this latest statement is a nice juicy target for political maneuvering, it's actually not out of line with the letter and spirit of the law. The declaration of war thing - that's a different matter, and certainly deserving of skepticism and possibly approbation.

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[Belegon]

As an honorary lesbian nominated and consecrated by the vellalicious one, I believe that she would be a far more effective "decider" than her neighbor and I relish this opportunity to prove my loyalty by standing beside her to hold her pen, reading glasses, staplers and any other office supplies she deems necessary.

but, it only goes so far...if you ask me to hold your coffee I WILL drink it.

She will be a much better "decider" than her 'neighbor'...four.




BTW, I agree that Bush is the Commander in Chief in war...but, I would say that this does not apply, since congress never declared war. If Georgie wants real actual war powers, let him acquire them by getting congress to declare war. THEN he can say "I'm the decision maker" and fall back on the constitution. But he has no right to circumvent the constitution then and point to it as "proof" now.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

And just exactly what else did you expect from The Lord God, Bush?

He's lied and conived his way through 6 years of his presidency. He has rewritten the Constitution without consulting congress, let alone the American People. He's engaged in an unholy war against Iraq and is now contemplating another in Iran (Yes, why do you suppose he sent an Aircraft Carrier to the coast of Iran?) and has listened to nobody. Why would he start now?

I love the quote: "I've heard the American people on November 7th and I'm ready to work with congress." I hope he says that again when they cut off his funding and he finds himself selling pencils on Pennsylvania Avenue to pay the White House light bill.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

BTW, I agree that Bush is the Commander in Chief in war...but, I would say that this does not apply, since congress never declared war. If Georgie wants real actual war powers, let him acquire them by getting congress to declare war. THEN he can say "I'm the decision maker" and fall back on the constitution. But he has no right to circumvent the constitution then and point to it as "proof" now.

You can't imagine how fast I would sign on to a consensus that the limited powers delegated to the various branches of the federal government by the Constitution means, "these, and only these powers may you exercise!" I'm not disagreeing that the Constitution has been perverted when it comes to war powers, but I profoundly doubt that most of those holding up that principle in this instance are anywhere near willing to apply it consistently across the board. Certainly not the 99 percent of congress members who every year gleefully authorize thousands of exercises of power not specifically delegated to the federal government.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm a heretic and follow only my own beliefs.

Sorry, vella.

As to the original post. Shrugs. Not surprising. It wouldn't surprise me if Bush decided to go nuclear. I don't expect it but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Belegon]

You can't imagine how fast I would sign on to a consensus that the limited powers delegated to the various branches of the federal government by the Constitution means, "these, and only these powers may you exercise!" I'm not disagreeing that the Constitution has been perverted when it comes to war powers, but I profoundly doubt that most of those holding up that principle in this instance are anywhere near willing to apply it consistently across the board. Certainly not the 99 percent of congress members who every year gleefully authorize thousands of exercises of power not specifically delegated to the federal government.

You mean elected officials are exploiting loopholes and being all sneaky and shit!

I thought people wanted to be elected so they could do good for their fellow man

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You mean elected officials are exploiting loopholes and being all sneaky and shit!

I thought people wanted to be elected so they could do good for their fellow man

There's nothing sneaky about it. They know exactly what they're doing, as does anyone who's read the plain language of the Constitution. And most people are perfectly OK with it. So be it - but then don't come back to the long-abandoned principle when it's politically convenient and expect your newfound "dedication" to the Constitution to be be taken seriously. (I don't mean that "you" personally; my post is not directed at any particular individual.)

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

There's nothing sneaky about it. They know exactly what they're doing, as does anyone who's read the plain language of the Constitution. And most people are perfectly OK with it. So be it - but then don't come back to the long-abandoned principle when it's politically convenient and expect your newfound "dedication" to the Constitution to be be taken seriously. (I don't mean that "you" personally; my post is not directed at any particular individual.)

The problem here, Roxanne, is that the Constitution requires Congressional oversite of military activites, even in war time. But is doing the same thing Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon did up to the time congress finally flexed their muscles and demanded oversite, which ended in cutting off funding for the Vietnam War.

With a loyal Republican congress, Bush got away with it. His promise to "work closely" with the Democratic congress has obviously been nothing but lip service. He hasn't even tried. Chuck Hagle said it best: "The president's idea of working together is My Way or the Highway."

So what's he so worried about? Investigations into the Halaberton connection? High Crimes and Misdomenors?

 

[Belegon]

There's nothing sneaky about it. They know exactly what they're doing, as does anyone who's read the plain language of the Constitution. And most people are perfectly OK with it. So be it - but then don't come back to the long-abandoned principle when it's politically convenient and expect your newfound "dedication" to the Constitution to be be taken seriously. (I don't mean that "you" personally; my post is not directed at any particular individual.)

we so need a proper sarcasm smiley.

sweetie, my tongue would have required surgery to be more firmly in my cheek there...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The problem here, Roxanne, is that the Constitution requires Congressional oversite of military activites, even in war time. But is doing the same thing Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon did up to the time congress finally flexed their muscles and demanded oversite, which ended in cutting off funding for the Vietnam War.

With a loyal Republican congress, Bush got away with it. His promise to "work closely" with the Democratic congress has obviously been nothing but lip service. He hasn't even tried. Chuck Hagle said it best: "The president's idea of working together is My Way or the Highway."

So what's he so worried about? Investigations into the Halaberton connection? High Crimes and Misdomenors?

That's all politics, Jenny, not constitutional principle, except for the point about cutting off funding for Viet Nam - that was indeed Congress exercising a power specifically delegated to it. Politics is all well and good - it's what democratic governments do. I'm just making the point that a congress that ignores the principle of limited, specifically delegated powers in 99 percent of what it does - and a population that happily acquiesces to this - can't expect credibility when they suddenly discover the principle in a moment when it's rhetorically convenient.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

we so need a proper sarcasm smiley.

sweetie, my tongue would have required surgery to be more firmly in my cheek there...

I'm sorry, Bel. I pretty much knew that. You just happened to be the foil upon which I've developed my argument an little more fully.

We do need that smiliy.

(You know, there are other smileys available for this V-bulletin software that Lit uses? I don't know if that's one of them.)

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

That's all politics, Jenny, not constitutional principle, except for the point about cutting off funding for Viet Nam - that was indeed Congress exercising a power specifically delegated to it. Politics is all well and good - it's what democratic governments do. I'm just making the point that a congress that ignores the principle of limited, specifically delegated powers in 99 percent of what it does - and a population that happily acquiesces to this - can't expect credibility when they suddenly discover the principle in a moment when it's rhetorically convenient.

It's not the idea that all three branches of government skirt the constitution on a regular basis. Government couldn't work otherwise. It's more the flagrant, egotistic attitude of the President's Administration that's at issue.

 

[3113]

It's not the idea that all three branches of government skirt the constitution on a regular basis. Government couldn't work otherwise. It's more the flagrant, egotistic attitude of the President's Administration that's at issue.

The presidency isn't a dictatorship?

That's the last time I trust the right-wing media....