Whereas Congress doesn't seem to have much interest in even enforcing the rules it set forth under the act, we the people are at the mercy of the whims of Supreme Court's appointee to the Presidency. Before anyone accuses anyone else of being un-patriotic, I hope they consider that the invasion of Iraq, like Vietnam before it, is the farthest thing from the type of war this country is supposed to be involved as envisioned by the rules of the Republic set down by writers of the Constitution. This war is irredeemably un-American. Even if it is revealed that Saddam has 'weapons of mass destruction' with ability to strike at the U.S., and should it be revealed he planned to use them, post facto proof (which I feel fairly certain will be fabricated like the flimsy 'evidence' presented as justification for the invasion) doesn't retroactively make this war right.
Thursday, March 27, 2003
Why do we even have a Constitution if we're going to ignore it?
I've been wondering, somewhat idly, when Congress abdicated the authority it was instilled with under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the article that specifically grants Congress (not the President) the power to declare war? Was it back in 1964 with the passage of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, I mused? Nope, a quick google search reminded me, it was formally accomplished by the War Powers Act of 1973. Under the War Powers Act, the President can use the military for whatever purpose without Congressional approval for something like 80 days. Clearly, this is one of the worst and most abused pieces of legislation ... ever. Obviously un-Constitutional, it never should've passed, and when passed should've been immediately struck down by the Supreme Court. But there you have it.
Whereas Congress doesn't seem to have much interest in even enforcing the rules it set forth under the act, we the people are at the mercy of the whims of Supreme Court's appointee to the Presidency. Before anyone accuses anyone else of being un-patriotic, I hope they consider that the invasion of Iraq, like Vietnam before it, is the farthest thing from the type of war this country is supposed to be involved as envisioned by the rules of the Republic set down by writers of the Constitution. This war is irredeemably un-American. Even if it is revealed that Saddam has 'weapons of mass destruction' with ability to strike at the U.S., and should it be revealed he planned to use them, post facto proof (which I feel fairly certain will be fabricated like the flimsy 'evidence' presented as justification for the invasion) doesn't retroactively make this war right.
Whereas Congress doesn't seem to have much interest in even enforcing the rules it set forth under the act, we the people are at the mercy of the whims of Supreme Court's appointee to the Presidency. Before anyone accuses anyone else of being un-patriotic, I hope they consider that the invasion of Iraq, like Vietnam before it, is the farthest thing from the type of war this country is supposed to be involved as envisioned by the rules of the Republic set down by writers of the Constitution. This war is irredeemably un-American. Even if it is revealed that Saddam has 'weapons of mass destruction' with ability to strike at the U.S., and should it be revealed he planned to use them, post facto proof (which I feel fairly certain will be fabricated like the flimsy 'evidence' presented as justification for the invasion) doesn't retroactively make this war right.
