Feb 23 2007
Democrat’s Need A Lesson On The US Constitution
Democrats (and their media puppets) always seem in need of a serious tutorial on the very US Constitution they took an oath to protect. The Senate Dems are tring to play Commander-in-Chief (those silly egoes of theirs!) and direct the use of our forces in Iraq.
Four years ago, Congress passed legislation authorizing President Bush to go to war in Iraq. Now Senate Democrats want to take it back.
Key lawmakers, backed by party leaders, are drafting legislation that would effectively revoke the broad authority granted to the president in the days Saddam Hussein was in power, and leave U.S. troops with a limited mission as they prepare to withdraw.
Officials said Thursday the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled. One version would restrict American troops in Iraq to fighting al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.
Congress has no such power. Time to time an overly excited Congress thinks all they need to do to change the Constitution is pass a Bill the normal way. We all know that is not how it works, and here is what the Constitution says about who directs the military:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; …
No caveats or conditions or limitations. None. Here are some historical annotations to these clear Consitutional Powers:
n 1850, Chief Justice Taney, for the Court, said: ”His duty and his power are purely military. As commander-in- chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. He may invade the hostile country, and subject it to the sovereignty and authority of the United States. But his conquests do not enlarge the boundaries of this Union, nor extend the operation of our institutions and laws beyond the limits before assigned to them by the legislative power.
The Congress cannot rewrite the Constitution by normal Bills. So this is another wasted, useless, ego-trip by one of the worst Democrat Senates in America’s history.
The issue is the funding authorized by Congress.
But the Democrats do not have the strength to override a presidential veto.
We got somthing and they got nothing. All they can do is spread their toes and pick their nose.
They want to reverse their early support of the war with an alteration to a resolution they passed.
Read up on the word resolution, ya know it means something and not just sorta.
Dingy Harry (who can’t tell a Sunni from a Shite from the Al Sadr Militia from Al Qaeda from a HOLE IN THE GROUND) wants to require our soldiers to ask for ID before they are allowed to act! That’s just perrrrrrfect Harry. No kidding…that’s just “beautiful”!
In your wildest imagination, can you ever imagine a war where we send a couple of battalions of “lawyers” instead of troops. If these morons have their way, that’s exactly what will happen. I mean, they won’t have the votes to pass this “bill”, but what is even more disturbing is that SEVERAL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES are pushing for it. They are (or would be) effectively abdicating their responsibility as Commander-in-Chief in favor of command by consensus! This is a horrible development. Is there not even ONE Democrat who believes in this country anymore?
Un-freaking-believable!!
Historic revisionism the only ill for which we don’t have a pill.
Erasers are our friend of sorts, but we can provide others.
I think some thoughts today, but I rejected them tomorrow.
How much smarter does that make me, or even how much dumber.
Sooth
Don’t think this applies to you, you have the patent on dumb.
Carol
We have names for those things, I will be nice and not say them.
Reid’s resolution or proposal is just as bad as the one Heather Wilson of Nevada came up with last year.
Neither resolution protect our US troops in spite of what they say.
Amazing how much smarter we are than some of the Congress-people!
The left is trying to show us how to do a late term abortion on a vote.
But the Democrats do not have the strength to override a presidential veto.
Nor the cajones to try, Lurker.
Seriously, the Donks are in somewhat of a pickle. If they actually try, even in a disguised, round-a-bout way, to defund the war, they will be voted back out of the majority faster than you can say “election day, 2008.” If they don’t make some good faith effort (and I don’t think a NON-BINDING RESOLUTION counts as good faith), much of their Kook base stays home in 2008. It used to be, before the days of the New Media, that politicians could get away with saying different things at different times in different places to different groups of people, and get away with it. Not any more.
Just what we need — returning to the Vietnam War policy of not allowing soldiers and Marines to shoot at the people shooting at them unless somebody in Washington gives the OK. Great. And when such policies by micromanagers in Congress actually turn Iraq into another Vietnam, the Democrats will be telling us that the lesson learned here is that fighting a war is always futile. Yeah, we really need to go back to doing things the way they were done during the Vietnam War.
[/sarcasm]
AJ: here is some scientific PROOF that Leftism/Libralism, turns your brains to mush:
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/070221_friends_memory.html
“Just what we need — returning to the Vietnam War policy of not allowing soldiers and Marines to shoot at the people shooting at them unless somebody in Washington gives the OK. Great. And when such policies by micromanagers in Congress actually turn Iraq into another Vietnam, the Democrats will be telling us that the lesson learned here is that fighting a war is always futile. Yeah, we really need to go back to doing things the way they were done during the Vietnam War.”
Ah…now I remember when we blew the first opportunity to capture bin Laden before he hit Tora. Why? Because our troops were waiting for permission from here. Boy, did that change immediately allowing empowerment of our military.
MARTIN, Plaintiff in Error, v. MOTT, Defendant in Error.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
25 U.S. 19; 6 L. Ed. 537; 1827 U.S. LEXIS 378; 12 Wheat. 19
February 2, 1827, Decided
For the more clear and exact consideration of the subject, it may be necessary to refer to the constitution of the United States, and some of the provisions of the act of 1795. The constitution declares that Congress shall have power “to provided for calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions:” and also “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.” In pursuance of this authority, the act of 1795 has provided, “that whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the State or States most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his order for that purpose to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper.” And like provisions are made for the other cases stated in the constitution. It has not been denied here, that the act of 1795 is within the constitutional authority of Congress, or that Congress may not lawfully provide for cases of imminent danger of invasion, as well as for cases where an invasion has actually taken place. In our opinion there is no ground for a doubt on this point, even if it had been relied on, for the power to provide for repelling invasions includes the power to provide against the attempt and danger of invasion, as the necessary and proper means to effectuate the object. One of the best means to repeal invasion is to provide the requisite force for action before the invader himself has reached the soil.
The power thus confided by Congress to the President, is, doubtless, of a very high and delicate nature. A free people are naturally jealous of the exercise of military power; and the power to call the militia into actual service is certainly felt to be one of no ordinary magnitude. But it is not a power which can be executed without a correspondent responsibility. It is, in its terms, a limited power, confined to cases of actual invasion, or of imminent danger of invasion. If it be a limited power, the question arises, by whom is the exigency to be judged of and decided? Is the President the sole and exclusive judge whether the exigency has arisen, or is it to be considered as an open question, upon which every officer to whom the orders of the President are addressed, may decide for himself, and equally open to be contested by every militia-man who shall refuse to obey the orders of the President? We are all of opinion, that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons. We think that this construction necessarily results from the nature of the power itself, and from the manifest object contemplated by the act of Congress. The power itself is to be exercised upon sudden emergencies, upon great occasions of state, and under circumstances which may be vital to the existence of the Union. A prompt and unhesitating obedience to orders is indispensable to the complete attainment of the object. The service is a military service, and the command of a military nature; and in such cases, every delay, and every obstacle to an efficient and immediate compliance, necessarily tend to jeopard the public interests. While subordinate officers or soldiers are pausing to consider whether they ought to obey, or are scrupulously weighing the evidence of the facts upon which the commander in chief exercises the right to demand their services, the hostile enterprise may be accomplished without the means of resistance. If “the power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion, are (as it has been emphatically said they are) natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defence, and of watching over the internal peace of the confederacy,” these powers must be so construed as to the modes of their exercise as not to defeat the great end in view.If a superior officer has a right to contest the orders of the President upon his own doubts as to the exigency having arisen, it must be equally the right of every inferior officer and soldier; and any act done by any person in furtherance of such orders would subject him to responsibility in a civil suit, in which his defence must finally rest upon his ability to establish the facts by competent proofs. Such a course would be subversive of all discipline, and expose the best disposed officers to the chances of ruinous litigation. Besides, in many instances, the evidence upon which the President might decide that there is imminent danger of invasion, might be of a nature not constituting strict technical proof, or the disclosure of the evidence might reveal important secrets of state, which the public interest, and even safety, might imperiously demand to be kept in concealment.
If we look at the language of the act of 1795, every conclusion drawn from the nature of the power itself, is strongly fortified. The words are, “whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion, &c. it shall be lawful for the President, &c. to call forth such number of the militia, &c. as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion.” The power itself is confided to the Executive of the Union, to him who is, by the constitution, “the commander in chief of the militia, when called into the actual service of the United States,” whose duty it is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and whose responsibility for an honest discharge of his official obligations is secured by the highest sanctions. He is necessarily constituted the judge of the existence of the exigency in the first instance, and is bound to act according to his belief of the facts. If he does so act, and decides to call forth the militia, his orders for this purpose are in strict conformity with the provisions of the law; and it would seem to follow as a necessary consequence, that every act done by a subordinate officer, in obedience to such orders, is equally justifiable. The law contemplates that, under such circumstances, orders shall be given to carry the power into effect; and it cannot therefore be a correct inference that any other person has a just right to disobey them. The law does not provide for any appeal from the judgment of the President, or for any right in subordinate officers to review his decision, and in effect defeat it. Whenever a statute gives a discretionary power to any person, to be exercised by him upon his own opinion of certain facts, it is a sound rule of construction, that the statute constitutes him the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts. And, in the present case, we are all of opinion that such is the true construction of the act of 1795. It is no answer that such a power may be abused, for there is no power which is not susceptible of abuse. The remedy for this, as well as for all other official misconduct, if it should occur, is to be found in the constitution itself. In a free government, the danger must be remote, since in addition to the high qualities which the Executive must be presumed to possess, of public virtue, and honest devotion to the public interests, the frequency of elections, and the watchfulness of the representatives of the nation, carry with then all the checks which can be useful to guard against usurpation or wanton tyranny.
This doctrine has not been seriously contested upon the present occasion. It was indeed maintained and approved by the Supreme Court of New-York, in the case of Vanderheyden v. Young, (11 Johns. Rep. 150.) where the reasons in support of its were most ably expounded by Mr. Justice Spencer, in delivering the opinion of the Court.
but it is now contended, as it was contended in that case, that notwithstanding the judgment of the President is conclusive as to the existence of the exigency, and may be given in evidence as conclusive proof thereof, yet that the avowry is fatally defective, because it omits to aver that the fact did exist. The argument is, that the power confided to the President is a limited power, and can be exercised only in the cases pointed out in the statute, and therefore it is necessary to aver the fact which bring the exercise within the purview of the statute. In short, the same principles are sought to be applied to the delegation and exercise of this power intrusted to the Executive of the nation for great political purposes, as might be applied to the humblest officer in the government, acting upon the most narrow and special authority. It is the opinion of the Court, that this objection cannot be maintained. When the President exercises an authority confided to him by law, the presumption that it is exercised in pursuance of law. Every public officer is presumed to act in obedience to his duty, until the contrary is shown; and, a fortiori, this presumption ought to be favourably applied to the chief magistrate of the Union. It is not necessary to aver, that the act which he may rightfully do, was so done. If the fact of the existence of the exigency were averred, it would be traversable, and of course might be passed upon by a jury; and thus the legality of the orders of the President would depend, not on his own judgment of the facts, but upon the finding of those facts upon the proofs submitted to a jury. This view of the objection is precisely the same which was acted upon by the Supreme Court of New-York, in the case already referred to, and, in the opinion of this Court, with entire legal correctness.
SBD
PS: in a sign that Dhimmitude is not that far down the pike in Britain; the Muslim Council of Britain, has British supporters in trying to implement Shari’a in British Public Schools!
Read this, and see if your Blood doesn’t boil?
I’m sure the Jacobin Left, in this country, will soon be helphing the Jihadis push for the same thing!
Great….
http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=1264
The left is trying to show us how to do a late term abortion on a vote.
RS
If yer gonna post things like that at least post a warning first ya gotta put down yer beer before ya do that nasty nose thingy.
Looks like the week kneed Dems are reading the polls.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzI2YjI4NjU5N2I4ZTE3ZjAwNmQ5YzJkYjRlYzk5Y2M=
Read and Weep…
I particularly like this comment,
“”Congress has no business micromanaging a war, cutting off funding or even conditioning those funds,” said Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.), a leading Democratic moderate, who called Murtha’s whole effort “clumsy.””
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/02/23/british_withdrawal/
Brits leave US very vulnerable in south of Iraq! I guess when Strata included the south as one of the 16 “safe” provinces in Iraq, he wasn’t paying close attention and when Terrye said the Brits could leave without harm, she was in la la land and when Merlin or Lurker said the
government of southern Iraq was not Islamicist but rather pro-American, he was listening to blithering idiots like Cheney.
No wonder Murtha wants to save US troop lives!
Merlin, actually that was Retire05 that came up with that gem, but I had the same reaction you did. LMAO!!
Southern Iraq is still Islamic but currently believe in Al-Sistani’s secular law. When Al-Sadr tried to force Shari’a law on southern Iraq, the people of the Southern Iraq did not like it. They are still pro-American and pro-Britain.
Cheney is one of the smartest men to serve as a public servant.
Loved Curt’s statement:
“How will they push this new tactic? By bringing up WMD’s again:
“We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein,” Biden said of the 2002 resolution in a speech last week before the Brookings Institution. “The WMD was not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq.”
But lookie lookie. The internet still exists and can provide us all with a copy of the AUMF. Lets take a gander at a few sections. You can read the whole thing here:
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
[…]Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
[…]Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
[…]Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
[…]Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
[…]Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’ and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688′;
[…]Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups
[…]Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region”
Amen, Captain Morrissey!!
Democrats Try Binding Resolutions
Loved Mac Ranger’s comments:
Democrats – “When all else fails we roll back time and change our mindâ€
Won’t work.
P.S. Here’s what Joseph Biden said in 2002:
Dare call me a liar on the fact that Biden did indeed made this statement?