Hulver's site || Comments || The other white meat...

Two Words: by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #15 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 11:30:58 AM EST

Viet Nam.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

Meh that is not a good reply by cam (2.00 / 0) #22 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 12:05:40 PM EST

I am aware congress used the purse to limit the executive's options in the latter stages of Vietnam, but the reality is they are stepping on the executive's toes. A non-binding resolution communicates to the executive that their policy will come under appropriations/bill/fiscal scrutiny in the future and now might be a good time to change that policy over the next two years.

There are separation of powers issues here and congress is doing it wisely and constitutionally.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Separation of Powers by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #24 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 12:22:33 PM EST

Right. The lack of separation of powers is partially how we got into this mess as the Congress under Bush for the first 6 years was merely a an extension of the WH.

Congress would be doing the will of the people by forcing the issue and cutting funding. The fore-fathers gave them the power of the purse in order to keep the executive branch in check which is what we need right now. It worked in VietNam and it would work today.

Also, I've yet to see an explanation of how the resolution will affect the WH as Bush et.al., doesn't give a damn about what anyone else thinks they should be doing. He's (I'M THE DECIDER) made that clear. As such I view the resolution as a political ploy designed to placate the unwashed masses. 100% total bullocks if you ask me.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

Because Bush/Cheney by cam (2.00 / 0) #33 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 01:01:49 PM EST

have no care for separation of powers this means Congress doesn't have to care about them either? So you would trash a constitutional system so that actions matches your politics?

Congress publicly communicated with the Executive that they don't want to meddle in foreign policy, however the resolution proves there are the numbers in both houses to do so. It is as much testing who much support across party benches there is for this (ie certainty in future bills on this issue) as well communicating to the Administration that they numbers are there.

Sounds to me like you just want a speaker who is just like Bush except wearing a Democratic Party dinner jacket rather than a Republican one.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

you see.... by StackyMcRacky (2.00 / 0) #34 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 01:09:33 PM EST

Bob listens to NPR, and he's just trying to look witty and insightful.

you're really raining on his parade here.

[ Parent ]

: i like the evil stacky. by garlic (2.00 / 0) #53 Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 06:15:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #39 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 01:41:57 PM EST

I don't see it as trashing the constitution. I see it as Congress serving the people. Congress rightfully asserting the power given to them.

Would you prefer they impeach Bush/Cheney?

Also - I heard about it on NPR so I know it's the right thing to do!

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

: Bush got elected two years ago by cam (2.00 / 0) #43 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:29:25 PM EST

remember, he has as much a reason to serve the people as Congress does. Congress does not have a constitutional duty to do foreign policy. It is best for all concerned if the Executive and Legislative work this out without creating new precedents. The resolution does this. It is a communication, a warning, and a first step that the legislative will make policy in relation to iraq, that they have the numbers to do so, and the constitutional authority to affect that policy through fiscal restrictions.
It is wise on their part and shows greater constitutional awareness from the Democratic leadership than the Republican Executive and former-Legislative leadership.
Beccaria considers that punishment and criminality must be determined by the harm that is done to society as a whole. There is no more harm that can be done to society by an action other than unconstitutional behaviour from the executive/legislative. I am fully in favour of criminal proceedings and imprisonment being brought against any member of the executive/legislative who has done so. It is the most disgusting form of corruption and the most hateful of social criminal acts.
cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]