an opinion
article
by If you listen to Americans complain, President Bush is the general target of distaste for the presence in Iraq. This past Tuesday, 42.5 million viewers watched the president’s televised speech that outlined his new plan for operations in the Middle East. Almost immediately, congressional democrats expressed their opinion that Bush’s plan is not what the public voted for in the recent elections. This of course, begs the question, who has the authority (perhaps even a public responsibility) to withdraw American forces from Iraq?
The United States Constitution defines the power of the president, which was confirmed by the Department of Justice, with regard to deploying the military. On the other hand, Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution defines the powers of congress; specifically the power to declare war and to support the army. Digging deeper, clause 11, known as the War Powers Clause, of the Constitution specifically outlines congressional authority with regard to war. In the history of the United States, congress has normally supported the actions of the president despite a framework that clearly establishes a separation of power.
The president’s ninety days of arbitrary deployment have long since passed. Referencing the Constitution, should the angst of Americans lie with its congressional representation rather than the executive branch?
Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:
- Stolen Military Equipment for Highest Online Bidders, by gnifyus almost 2 years ago
- Ultimate War Simulation Game (Humor), by PowerPointSamurai over 2 years ago
- Dirty Laundry, by PowerPointSamurai almost 4 years ago
- Hamdan's Day in Court, by mikeforbes almost 4 years ago
Print Friendly
Write an Article
As I remember it by Anonymous :: NR0 :: Show
As I remember it, congress voted to support the president’s decision to go into Iraq. If they want to change their minds and force him out of it, they have the power, they just have to muster the votes. Ultimately congress can do whatever it wants, even make an official ren & stimpy day if they wanted to. They just need the votes. So, it seems the Democrats are saying, "We want you to listen to us because America voted us into power….but America didn’t vote us into power enough to override all of your decisions, but you should do that anyway because that’s what America was really trying to say without actually saying it."
Anyway, if you want my humble opinion, the Democrats love to bitch, but I’m not sure if they know how to do anything else. And really they can’t even come up with sensible bitches. It seems to me that Democrats act like little tiny kids when it comes to Bush. All they do is whine and make plans to raise taxes. Besides raising taxes and pushing abortion, they can’t come up with a single idea.
I hope America is really happy. Just to get back at the Republicans for their bonehead run in congress, we’ve got to put up with who knows how many years of Pelosi and Reid running the show. Why don’t we just hand the country to Osama? At least that’d save time.
More Democratic Hypocrisy by jmarkdavison :: NR5 :: Show
The new minimum wage bill would be effective in all states and territories, except American Samoa.
Why? Two tuna fish companies employ 75% of American Samoa’s workforce. One, Starkist (like most businesses) is vigorously opposed to the minimum wage hike. And in whose Congressional district is Starkist headquartered?
Answer: Nancy Pelosi.
Way to take care of the working man, Nancy!
Anti-Congress Bumper Stickers by VnutZ :: NR10 :: Show
Today, CNN reported on Bush challenging his opponents. "To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," Bush said.
The article fits in line with this logic completely. It’s not like the "new congress" has much research to do into the matter. The issues have been on the table for years now. They’ve been complaining for years now. Yes, Bush makes himself look ridiculously arrogant with the statement – but it is true. His opponents wield the complete power to undo the entire military operation with a single voting session.
Yet they don’t. So should pundits stick we have anti-congress bumper stickers all over their cars now?
Bush Challenges Congress ... Again by VnutZ :: NR10 :: Show
CNN reports that President Bush has directly challenged that congress does not have the power to stop his troop increase. "Frankly, that’s not their responsibility. It’s my responsibility to put forward the plan that I think will succeed. I believe if they start trying to cut off funds, they better explain to the American people and the soldiers why their plan will succeed."
And I’ll bet you congress totally rolls over on its back, doing nothing but complaining. Given this gauntlet toss by the president, we will see exactly what the true colors of the democrat congress are within the next five days.
What happened to the Monroe Doctrine? by Occams :: NR8 :: Show
We should get out as soon as possible.
Intervening in a civil war (sufficiently to make a difference) always results in an unstable outcome that will have to enforced indefinitely.
More people will be harmed by us staying there because the natural balance will be achieved in the long run. It does not matter if we don’t like the outcome of the civil war. That is not our business – unless we are in the oil business.
Are our young men being killed for the oil business?
Four more years by adigaudio :: NR3 :: Show
Well, this sounds like an issue that can be justly debated in a number of different ways, and I strongly support the discussion. Even better, I would like to see the current political players in the White House and the Congress fight this one until the end. I guess it’s a good thing that the President can still be elected to one more four-year term.
Impeach him! by Anonymous :: NR0 :: Show
Uh… that was random.
Opinions are Good, but what good do they do? by isaacs26 :: NR0 :: Show
Everybody has an opinion on this matter. Whether the Junior High student or the college professor, we all have our own ideas of what should be done in Iraq. If most of us believe, and if most of congress believes that we went into Iraq under false pretenses, then what are we still doing there? Did we go in to overthrow a repressive regime? Yes. Did we go to liberate a nation from that regime? Yes. Did we go in and destroy these weapons of mass destruction? No, because they have yet to be found. True, congress does have the authority to withdraw the US from Iraq, but why do that when you have stock in Halliburton or Brown and Root? Oil CEO’s in the US have been frothing at the mouth because of this war. Their stock is up, and their shareholders, of which a good bit are members of congress and White House staff, have made a substantial monetary gain due to this war. We could have a timetable to withdraw, we could withdraw outright, or we could just stay there, line others pockets, and watch the atrocities on CNN. But hey, that’s just my opinion.
Iraq? Iran? who knows? by Occams :: NR8 :: Show
When our president attended the APEC summit in Sydney recently he thanked tha Aussie PM for the invitation to the OPEC meeting and then went on to say how he had visited Austrian troops in Iraq. Truly!
So perhaps he didn’ intend to invade Iraq at all. Maybe it was just another mind fart, and he really meant Iran all along. Perhaps we are fighting in a typo.