My two cents on the subject of impeachment:

I am saying this regardless of who the president is or what party he is from--usually it is just a big waste of time and taxpayer money, especially when it is very late in the person's presidency. Also, if not-too-ancient memory serves me correctly, just because a president gets impeached does not mean he will go away; if it was to go the way it did last time, the chief executive would still finish the term.

My state insisted on impeaching a governor (not necessarily a bad or criminal guy, just seriously ineffective), and that's how we ended up with our current "governator," (I call him that because I can't for the life of me spell his name, even though I have seen a few of his moviesl ).

--J--

I'd get in on this argument if I only had an opinion on that "Constitution" thingy.

quote:

Originally posted by weedkicker:
.......... if I only had an opinion ...........

"Mark, time and date! Mark."

Dirt

There aught to be some sort of reward for this kind of restraint.

For your restraint, you get my undying admiration, weedkicker, as well as my other friends here, even though they may not be quite as left of center as I.

I don't see the War Powers Act as being unreasonably restrictive or in any way preventing a president from taking immediate and decisive action to defend the US. This is in keeping with the Constitution, as I understand it, and seems to only clarify and strengthen it.

In short, it says the President can send our troops into action abroad only with approval of Congress or if our country is under attack or serious threat.

I agree with this. If applied properly, it gives a US president the authority to immediately defend us in times of real crises and prevents a gung-ho president from using our military for his own questionable ambitions abroad without presenting compelling evidence to Congress (and thus, to the American people.) It also prevents a president from ever again embroiling our nation in a seemingly endless and undeclared "police action" when our country is not in imminent peril (like Vietnam?) without approval from Congress.

Our constitution separated the powers of war between the Congress and the President and it did not divide them equally. It gave only the Congress the authority to declare war and to organize and fund the armed services and it rightly restricted the powers of the president. The President, as Commander in Chief of the military has the authority (and duty, in my opinion) to respond quickly to attacks on our nation and to lead the military in wars authorized by our representatives in Congress. The War Powers Act (a Congressional resolution) did not significantly alter that.

I won't ever know if I would agree or not with the other poster because he or she seemed unwilling to actually read it before discussing what he/she wanted it to mean.

Oh, in response to the original post from (who?) that posted and ran, I do agree that Dennis Kucinich's charges sound extremly plausible and were I asked to indict and send to the Senate for trial I certainly would. Of course there is not enough time in the remainder of the incumbant's term to impeach, try and convict

Wayne
Reporting live from Hell.

Well, Wayne, you and I agree again.

Our Founding Fathers were bright men, and they understood very well (through personal experience) the dangers of having the power to wage war vested in one man. The Constitutional Convention originally proposed giving Congress the power to "make war", but changed the phrase to "declare war" so the president would be able to repel a sudden attack without violating the Constitution. Nevertheless it was very clear from the discussions and Madison's copious notes that the intent was to give the war power to Congress, NOT the president.
As Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers (No. 69): "The president is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces as first general and admiral...while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies---all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."

Madison, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated April 2, 1798, described clearly and concisely which branch of government was given the war power and why: "The constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."

The irritating thing is that the War Powers Act was even necessary!

I'm afraid when it comes to Constitutional understanding, Flaja is out to lunch.