Constitution is followed
While letter writer David Eichenberger is entitled to his opinion, it is flatly inaccurate (“Bush should brush up on Constitution,” April 30). Congress did give President Bush the authority to go to war against Iraq. This is in accordance with the Constitution, as is the president’s role as commander-in-chief to conduct the war.
Indeed, it is Congress’ role to fund the war or not, and it is the president’s role to accept Congress’ recommendation or veto it, again according to the Constitution. Finally, Congress can override a veto, but only with a two-thirds majority.
The Constitution does not allow the “people” (in the 2006 election or any election) to subvert this process. This country is a republic with elected representatives, each of whom must follow the Constitution. And the Constitution is being followed, contrary to Eichenberger’s opinion.
Lowell Whitney, Arvada
If legislators take an oath to support the constitution but are also not held to a high ethical standard, does not that fact invite questionably actions,craftily renamed political expedency with a winking nod to the rule of law the constitution established. Such as undisclosed contribution's interference and undue influence in the legitimate goverment's and public's interest. It certainly seems to me that this solem oath has become nothing more than a minor tradition in the minds of some of the legislators who consider their personal preferences more important than the public's interests while, at the same time, refusing to recognize any and all truth that proves their contentions wrong. In other words, they do anything they want and , if a question arises about the validity of their actions, they can claim ignorance and get away with it. This is nothing less than a violation of the solem oath they took as well as a deception of the public and a contemptuous,cowardly and farcically treatment of the trust the voting public has every right to expect from their representatives.
Posted by Allen Campbell on May 16, 2007 09:28 AMLowell,you are right.The liberals make up lies and then the uneducated like drew,old grouch,con mor,etc. repeat theses lies.We are stuck having to deal with very ignorant people.
Posted by Keith on May 16, 2007 09:40 AMKeith telling people they're "uneducated" is like having WC Fields tell you you're an alcoholic.
Posted by Drew on May 16, 2007 10:07 AMKeith thinks WC Fields is a baseball stadium
Posted by Drew on May 16, 2007 10:55 AMLowell,
What is it about the word "fraud" that you do not understand? The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)" was based upon the lies that the Bush administration had told to congress. The resolution repeated the falsehoods that "...Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States ...", and that "Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq" (they are now).
So I quess that you think that the ability to dupe a majority of congress is constitutional?
I think that the people who lied us into this war should be impeached!
Mike h - Since there is a long list of people and countries that believed that information was true (to include President Clinton), please explain how President Bush would have known that it was not true at the time stated. It was determined to be false about a year after the invasion. So please present some evidence that President Bush know it was false before the invasion. Thank You
Posted by Frank on May 16, 2007 12:03 PMFrank,
Just because you learned a year after the fact that the justifications given were false doesn't mean that I have an obligation to prove anything to you. Use your logic...if Iraq was such a big threat, then why did the U.S use far too few troops?
mike h - Your "Bush lied" is tired, old liberal mantra. Try looking for news somewhere other than moveon for a change.
Posted by KW on May 16, 2007 12:31 PMSo Mike H - You don't have any proof - just rhetoric and emotion. Being an Independant I am not beholding to either major party. I have problems with some of President Bush's policies (Iraq/Iran/border security/immigration) and think others are great(economics/employment). I think President Clinton followed the political wind and would drop a policy or a friend if the polls indicated his popularity would improve. That being said neither person is worth hating. Being President is the toughest and most thankless job I can think of and anyone that gets gains that position is deserving of respect. Even if you don't like their policies. After all, elections come around every 4 years.
Posted by Frank on May 16, 2007 12:42 PMAm I the only one who has noticed that when the GOP was in control of the U.S. Congress, my Constitution walks worked like a charm, but now the Democrats are in control, I'm irregular?
Posted by on May 16, 2007 01:29 PMAm I the only one who has noticed that when the GOP was in control of the U.S. Congress, my Constitutional walks worked like a charm, but now the Democrats are in control, I'm irregular?
Posted by on May 16, 2007 01:29 PMKW,
That's Libertarian mantra. And I get my news right here.
Since you're obviously in the Bush Cult, you don't mind it when the cult leader lies and misleads you. I'll bet you screamed "bloody murder" when clinton lied, didn't you?
Lowell- Congress cannot delegate it's fundamental powers. The Supreme Court made this ruling in the Line Item Veto Case, where Congress tried to delegate it's power to the President to drop out specific items in a budget bill. The "Authorizing Act" is NOT a declaration of war anymore than the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was a declaration war.
How about some of you "contributors" , or even better havew Lowell, address this point?
Posted by Dave on May 16, 2007 02:15 PMdrew,you put me in my place,what's the next idiotic comment are you going to make "Bill Gates is broke",
Posted by Keith on May 16, 2007 02:31 PMdrew,you put me in my place,what's the next idiotic comment are you going to make "Bill Gates is broke",
Posted by Keith on May 16, 2007 02:31 PMdrew,you put me in my place,what's the next idiotic comment are you going to make "Bill Gates is broke",
Posted by Keith on May 16, 2007 02:31 PM"Bill Gates is broke"
Posted by Drew on May 16, 2007 02:48 PMSave the USA.....
Impeach Congress TODAY!!!!!!!
Posted by Tim on May 16, 2007 02:54 PMFrank (12:43), the yellow cake claims were known to be false prior to the State of the Union speech and well before the invasion. You are just another neocon appologist and lair.
Posted by J on May 16, 2007 03:45 PMJ - I deal in facts not assumptions. So it was a lie to say that British Intelligence believed that Iraq wanted to purchase yellow cake for Chad. The British Government did confirm that they did in fact believe that Iraq had intentions of purchasing yellow cake but that the deal did not go through.
As to the name calling - what purpose does that serve to intelligent debate? It does concern me that you may be potentially violent during a face-to-face discussion.
Posted by Frank on May 16, 2007 03:56 PMFrank, our own intelligence people were saying that the yellow cake documents were forgeries. Are you suggesting we should trust the British Government over our own intelligence agencies?
Posted by flimflam on May 16, 2007 04:09 PMThank you for your excellent letter. Well written and right to the point.
Posted by B Stuckey on May 16, 2007 04:36 PMFrank, perhaps you are not a liar (obviously you are using the same criteria as the criminal in chief in that respect). Perhaps you actually still believe the Fox News talking points that are so easily refuted with about 30 seconds of research. However, you are most definitely a neocon apologist and I don't consider that name calling since it is abundantly clear from your strident defense of this indefensible adminstration. The CIA memo directing that the claim be removed came in October 2002 yet the claim was repeated in the SOU address January 2003. But of course your statement "It was determined to be false about a year after the invasion" isn't a lie is it. Or does that depend on what the meaning of is is (or in this case of isn't is).
Posted by J on May 16, 2007 04:53 PMJ - Name calling is name calling. I have already stated that I do not belong to either party or much care for most of the polices of President Bush. I do find it interesting that you absolve any blame of either the Senate or the Congress on this issue. Both Intelligence Committees receive briefings from the CIA same as the President. I can find nothing that indicates that Mr. Tenet withheld information from those respective committee. So how come to those Republicans and Democrats do not get the same rage as you feel for the President?
Posted by Frank on May 16, 2007 05:56 PMYou're right , as a Constitutional Republic we are responsible as individuals for the actions our Representitives take.
I'm deeply ashamed that the President has decided (for us) that killing Iraqi civilians is right and a just response to 9/11.
He is wrong, and by not correcting his mistakes when confronted with the truth, it is further proof that he is either ignorant of the provisions in the Constitution, or just plain evil.
I'd prefer to believe the former, but it is becoming evident that he is the latter.
God help the USA...it's been hijacked by death-wish end timers.
If we don't act soon to correct our mistake of electing evil representitives, we are as guilty as they are.
Human beings are dead, both troops and civilians, over a policy to steal oil and export terrorism, for it matters not if you die as a result of a suicide bomber or a US-made cluster bomb... terror is terror, and we're responsible. that is..if you have any sense of justice at all.
Lowell, your contention is false. Congress unconstitutionally transferred its power to declare war to the executive branch. After all, the President may have decided not to go to war. If Congress had issued a Declaration of war, the President would have had no choice but to begin the war.
During the hearing on the authorization resolution before the war, Ron Paul (currently a Republican candidate for president) introduced a motion to declare war, even though he said he would vote against it. His motion was denied, Henry Hyde (R-IL) saying, "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don't have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment."
Why would Congress do this? Because declaring war would have left Congress open to blame if the war went badly -- as many of them probably suspected this one would.
Posted by Ben Anderson on May 16, 2007 10:55 PMWhat kills me is that many of the Bush haters, repeat propaganda they hear, but, haven't even read the Act authorizing military force in Iraq, or the Constitution for that matter. Had they, the would see that fighting Al Qaeda there was part of the purpose, and they'd also find that the preamble says our government will "provide" for the common defense. (it also says it will promote the general welfare, not "provide" the general welfare)
The question isn't war or no war, it's choosing between the lesser of two bad things, war, or a buildup of muslim extremism that threatens our economy,lives, and future.
It does seem to me that Congress improperly surrendered to the President its power to declare war.
For anyone interested, the authorization to use military force in Iraq is at http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Here are the most relevant portions:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
untruth,man you are a sucker,you keep on presenting propanganda web sites,you moran.
Posted by Keith on May 17, 2007 09:28 AMuntruth,man you are a sucker,you keep on presenting propanganda web sites,you moran.
Posted by Keith on May 17, 2007 09:28 AMHey Keith, why do you so often post the same thing 3-10 times?
Posted by on May 17, 2007 10:49 AMHey dmz, you don't sound de-militarized, but you do sound zoned. Friends don't let friends type drunk.
Posted by Older grouch on May 17, 2007 08:41 PMSomeday, Keith will write a full sentence without a misspelling. Even though he is truly a moran, everyone gets lucky sometime.
Posted by on May 17, 2007 10:02 PMIt appears the ignoramous label sticks to "moran" and his Jason Reynolds conduct has sticken him from this forum. No more laughs for Sharon. Me, your friendly deicide.
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen Ape r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org) on May 20, 2007 02:46 PMKeith isn`t the only one to give me laughs. How about John II`s "we wisdomed them real good" Nearly fell off the chair on that one.
I do love black humor some times. Or as bugs whould say "What a moran"!
Posted by Sharon B. on May 20, 2007 03:50 PM