tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post8856686398273687301..comments2024-03-28T03:14:51.294-05:00Comments on Dad29: The No-Fly Zone "Authorization" in the Senate. Really??Dad29http://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-35909429956167539782011-04-05T11:10:46.361-05:002011-04-05T11:10:46.361-05:00And who cares how much it costs! Narrowest benefi...And who cares how much it costs! Narrowest benefit of the doubt, cost no object! A trillion here, a trillion there!Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-37414763803502129422011-04-03T10:47:57.655-05:002011-04-03T10:47:57.655-05:00The only disagreement we have on this: I will acc...The only disagreement we have on this: I will accept a Constitutional Amendment that gives the president the ability to get bi-partisan endorsement with paperwork to follow.Beer, Bicycles and the VRWChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976779901265528597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-23922469006929048662011-04-03T09:25:52.743-05:002011-04-03T09:25:52.743-05:00Found him in the 'spam' filter of Blogger....Found him in the 'spam' filter of Blogger...<br /><br />For obvious reasons, the President must have some flexibility in use-of-force decisions. But let's be real about this: GWB, at least, spent a lot of time with Congressional leadership detailing/describing his concerns with Saddam.<br /><br />It's conceded by most parties that the WPA is un-Constitutional. I agree. But that's not to say that the CinC should be forced to gain a Congressional endorsement.<br /><br />I'll settle for bipartisan leadership endorsement--paperwork to follow later.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-4995349339799774972011-04-02T20:08:11.769-05:002011-04-02T20:08:11.769-05:00Whadya do with Dr. G, Dad?Whadya do with Dr. G, Dad?Beer, Bicycles and the VRWChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976779901265528597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-85763364759554287762011-04-02T19:52:48.627-05:002011-04-02T19:52:48.627-05:00Personally, I'm wary of any foreign adventuris...Personally, I'm wary of any foreign adventurism. Gave GWB the narrowest benefit of the doubt on taking out Saddam, but not for "nation-building."<br /><br />My problem with the Obama intervention is that it wasn't even polite to the Congress. Here, the Euros decided to go and dragged us in.<br /><br />WTF?Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-27263231738911840252011-04-02T19:45:19.365-05:002011-04-02T19:45:19.365-05:00Replying to Dr. G, whose response is in my email, ...Replying to Dr. G, whose response is in my email, but not here:<br /><br />I've been pretty consistent regarding the War Powers Act. I believe it is unconstitutional, but a President acting under the Act is not engaging in an illegal war. Since the invention (yeah, that's the term I use) of the War Powers Act, it has been pretty well followed. Congress has never been willing to act against the President when the time frame for combat has passed, so they have given the action a tacit extension. Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton all followed (more or less) the provisions of the Act. Obama hasn't even come within smelling distance, yet has received a pass (to this point).Beer, Bicycles and the VRWChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976779901265528597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-14543838844942571032011-04-02T19:30:20.026-05:002011-04-02T19:30:20.026-05:00Is this a principled stand on your part or just pa...Is this a principled stand on your part or just partisan conservative sniping at a Democratic President? <br /><br />If you have long argued for legislative involvement in military actions, based on the Constitution and legislative supremacy, then I agree.<br /><br />But there is alot of hypocrisy in our foreign policy. Democrats have complained about the imperial Presidency during the Reagan and Bush administrations. Republicans complain(ed) about it during the Obama and Clinton administration. <br /><br />For example, my former law school Con Law prof, criticized the imperial Clinton presidency, only to unfurl sophistical defenses of nearly unlimited executive powers during the Bush administration. Even Hamilton would have cringed at Yoo's monarchist executive. <br /><br />So, the question is simple. Are you a consistent advocate of a proper role for the legislature in military actions and foreign policy? Did you criticize Reagan for selling arms to Iran to circumvent Congress? <br /><br />I agree what Obama has (at best)basically reduced War Powers Resolution consultation to a mere formality. His March 21 letter and press release is inconsistent with the purposes of the War Powers Act. <br /><br />As long as respect and conformity for the War Powers Act waxes and wanes with partisan changes in administration, we will retain our unconstitutional monarchical presidency.DrGhttp://ikonoklazt.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-77263945473585098922011-04-02T19:02:34.891-05:002011-04-02T19:02:34.891-05:00Ummmm....illegal. Violates War Powers Act. Impea...Ummmm....illegal. Violates War Powers Act. Impeachment anyone?Beer, Bicycles and the VRWChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976779901265528597noreply@blogger.com