So Much For Bipartisanship
Throughout the 2006 election, voters were warned that Democrats would cut and run from Iraq as well as raise taxes. After one day in office they are already pushing that agenda.
Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid sent a letter to President Bush urging him not to raise troop levels in Iraq. Oh, and if he ignores them, they’ll just try and legislate a cap on troops. So much for that whole Commander in Chief responsibility.
On the subject of taxes, John Fund reports that:
new Pelosi House has opened the door to tax hikes. Yesterday’s package of new rules to govern the lower chamber erases the three-fifths majority that was required to raise taxes under the old Republican House rules. The new rules allow tax hikes through a simple majority vote.
It’s going to be a long (and expensive) two years.
Archived in: 2006 Election, Democrats, Iraq, TaxesJanuary 5, 2007 at 6:56 pm | Trackback
18 comments
Since the Constitution expliclty grants to Congress the power “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”, it clearly has the power to do something like cap the number of troops in a given theatre of war.
We can debate the wisdom of its actions … but the theory that it has no such power is a modern aberration which would have been incomprehensible to nineteenth century American politicans.
Quote the constitution, how about a page and para???? Does it mean what you are saying it means? Na, a leftie with a copy of the constitutions is dangerous. Na, they can’t read anyway.
Not to worry. After the first 100 days we’ll be slaves to the dhimmi’s or dead meat due to their policies. That won’t be just the conservatives, you dhimmi’s have put your a** in a sling to.
Cold Cash Steals more money from the taxpayers.
Just for starters, Aphrael, and we don’t have indulge in aracana, what does “Commander in Chief” mean to you?
Scrapiron: the constitution is long enough that you need page and paragraph numbers to be able to find it? I find that puzzling.
The rest of your comment seems to me to be incoherent, alas, and exaggerated. Do you seriously believe that within one hundred days we will either be dead or enslaved?
If that’s the case, why aren’t you engaged in armed revolution?
Rhod: that within the rules established by the legislature, the President has the final say on all military matters. The soldiers and the officers report to him, and have only the authority he delegates to them.
“War Powers” next, Aphrael. Whether you agree or not.
rhod: do you mean the war powers act, or something else?
If you’re referring to the war powers act, I’m not familiar enough with the details of the legislation to give a reasonable answer; and, in any event, the legislature has the power to repeal it.
If you’re referring to something else: I see no mention of war powers in Article II. The only grant of war powers I see is the grant to the legislature.
The legislature has the authority to declare war — which I would interpret to say that the legislature is the part of government which has the authority to *initiate conflict with another state*. For the executive to, for example, authorize an artillery barrage into a country with which we are not at war, absent a delegation of the authority to do so by the legislature, is unconstitutional.
Oh yes, Aphrael. What does “cap the number of troops mean” or for that matter “expand the number of troops”? The second can be assumed from your conclusion. After all, the legislature is a command authority in your claim. At the top of the chain of command, no less.
Could the legislature’s decisions conflict with field requirements established by the Commander in Chief? If the legislature is both raising and funding armies, and regulating the conduct of the Commander in Chief, (who has only procedural authority), is the Legistlature then the final war-making power in the US? And, since I anticipate your answer, which Presidents, if any, have observed this and are there precedents for your claims?
Finally, in Congress, which is now the principle war-making power in every way, which committee chair should the Commander in Chief report to? Should the chair be appointed by the majority party or by a vote of each House.
I could go on. You’re the Con scholar here. More info please.
Aphrael:
I’ve been considering your post. I think your remark that the Commander-in-Chief’s role is defined “within the rules established by the legislature” is insupportable.
We can’t decide the complexities around this matter in this blog, but “the rules for the government, etc…” seems to have involved issues of military justice, courts martial, and so on.
I’m not in favor of more ground troops, so I have no axe to grind on the Constitutional matter viz a viz the Iraq War. Pelosi’s letter seems to have no weight.
The Bush regime continues to run its Iraq catastrophe in a completely partisan manner. It even is ignoring a bipartisan commission led by James Baker, who played a key role for the GOP in Florida in 2000.
Bipartisanship does not mean blindly obeying everything that Republicans command.
Libhomo(?):
Gosh, I never heard of James Baker before this.
Snarky Rhod, snarky!
However, wield that vorpal sword, make it go snicker-snack, then go galumphing back.
I chortle in my joy!
What ho! Good Woodchuck! One such as I dreams of James Baker, and the ISG…
Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ears, and sometimes voices
That, if I then had waked after long sleep,
Will make me sleep again: and then in dreaming,
The clouds methought would open and show riches
Ready to drop upon me; that when I waked,
I cried to dream again.
James….Bak…ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Time for a nappypoo under the Tum-Tum tree…
Rhod.
I am going to scarf that and post it.
Man, I feel like Ronnie Hawkins at The Last Waltz! Thanks Wave.
Seriously man, I’ve now read that soliloquy a dozen times, and it is so true to Skakespearean style (I did my underclass independent writing requirement on whether or not all of Shakespeare’s plays were written by the same person) that it is quite a bit like watching Dana Carvey do George Bush (okay I could do better than that, but time is short here).
Seriously, your Tempest parody is priceless.
Uh oh. It’s a really, really obscure lament by Caliban, which I modified somewhat to suit the soporific effect of James Baker. I wish I was that bright, Wave, to have composed it all myself.