You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Parliament rejects PM's request to censure Syria for use of chemical weapons. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-30-13 03:36 AM
Original message
Parliament rejects PM's request to censure Syria for use of chemical weapons.
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Fri Aug-30-13 04:10 AM by No Elephants
During the 8-hour debate, it was established that there is no "smoking" gun type evidence.

Parliament debates eight hours on whether to censure Syria.

Our feckless Congress (or most of them) leave in place an unconstitutional authorizing the President to decide on his own whether to start a war.

But, No Elephants, you say, the administration of the equal rights law lecturer has said it believes the law to be constitutional. Obviously, Congress thought it was constitutional, or Congress would not have passed it. So, two branches of government believe it to be Constitutional. No disrespect, but who the hell are you to say otherwise.

Well, I'm someone who can read. I'm someone who does not make big bucks or get re-elected whenever the nation is at war.

The Constitution clearly puts the POTUS in charge of both foreign policy (though McCain seems not to have gotten that memo)and the military.

Yet, the Constitution also clearly says that Congress declares war, not the POTUS.

Given how short the Constitution was when first presented to the nation for ratification, we must make inferences. From the way that the Constitution allocated powers, I infer that the Framers felt very strongly that the CIC should not commence a war on his own.

War commits blood (our children, rarely those of the POTUS, Lincoln and FDR aside). War commits treasure. Our tax money.

Don't you really want that decision in the hands of many people, some of whom you can vote against in two to six years, rather than in the hands of a lone POTUS, who may be a lame duck under the term limit amendment to the Constitution?

Don't you want the debate on committing our children's lives and limbs and our tax dollars to be a public record, as the Constitution says proceedings of the House and Senate need to be, rather than behind closed doors of the Oval Office, protected by broad "Executive Privilege," something that the Framers did not even know about?

I know I do. And, clearly the Framers did.
Refresh | +1 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC