Bush vetoes the Iraqi pullout bill ( and restores the Constitution )
Posted by Moonage on 02 May 2007 | Tagged as: 2008 Presidential Race, Legislative Process, National Security, Political Correctness, Politics, Polls
Yesterday Bush vetoed the Iraqi pullout bill. In that bill, it had emergency spending for the military as well. That was both expected politically, and I expected it for bigger reasons. Spending will be done one way or another until a proper funding bill is presented. The war won’t stop just because a few loonies sabotaged it. The bigger issue in my opinion is Bush kept Congress from meddling in a military operation. The very last thing this country needs is 535 people with no real military experience or commitment trying to micromanage our troops in harm’s way. They have the right to examine what’s going on, to give guidance to the President, and pass laws affecting it’s funding etc.. What they do not have the right, per the Constitution, is to usurp the authority of the Commander and Chief as defined by the Constitution they promised to uphold. Every single person that voted for that bill IMO has voted to violate the US Constitution and should be forced to explain how it does NOT violate the separation of powers. Here’s the list of people who felt compelled to totally toss the Constitution aside and take over the military:
|
|
|
Now, I am curious, although I KNOW they would all flip completely out if I question the patriotism, which I’m not, I think they think they’re doing what’s best for the US, but, they’re letting their politics outweigh their logic. Now, treason is defined as aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States. If these people feel it’s best to surrender and walk away at a very defined date, then they have made the enemy’s job profoundly simple. Just hide and wait it out. That folks, is aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States. It’s a harsh word to use, but it’s a fact. I don’t question their patriotism, but I do question their priorities. Before I wrap it all up, think about the plight of another gallant US citizen from way back when:
….distinguished himself as a hero of revolution early in the war through acts of cunning and bravery in the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga, the Invasion of Canada (1775), the Battle of Valcour Island in Lake Champlain in 1776, the battles of Danbury and Ridgefield in Connecticut (after which he was promoted to Major General), and the Battle of Saratoga in 1777. He was wounded several times.
At the time, this guy was one of the most heralded patriots in the United States. No one would DARE question his patriotism. However, due to later commitments to other issues (namely a loyalist wife and bitterness over a missed promotion), Benedict Arnold would set a defined timeline for the US to withdraw troops from a contested location.
The only difference between what he did and what these people did is the location.
Additionally, what disturbs me about this vote is three of the people who voted for it are running for President. I really think people need to think twice about a potential President who does not understand, respect, or honor the very basic philosophy of the United States Constitution. That being the separation of powers. If they don’t respect it now, you can’t make the argument they’ll suddenly respect it if elected.
|
Opinion Polls & Market Research |
Opinion Polls & Market Research |
Opinion Polls & Market Research |
4 Comments »
on 02 May 2007 at 4:24 pm 1.mw
said …
“Every single person that voted for that bill IMO has voted to violate the US Constitution and should be forced to explain how it does NOT violate the separation of powers.” - moon
It doesn’t. In fact, the Congress is fulfilling their constitutional duties as they have neglected to do over the last four years. As our representatives, they are accurately reflecting the will of the people that elected them. That is why our founding fathers made the legislature the “first branch” and not the executive.
However, if you wish to cling to your incorrect thesis, you are going to have to add one hell of a lot more “treasonous”, “constitiution violating” senators to your list. Lets start with any Republican Senators who were sitting in Congress 12 years ago when Binding Joint Senate Resolution 44 from December, 1995 -”Concerning the Deployment of United States Armed Forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” was passed. Some resolution excerpts:
This binding resolution was co-sponsored by John McCain and Joe Lieberman. 69 Senators of both parties voted for it. Nuff said.
this is one of many examples from Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Panama, and Vietnam where Congress properly interjected themselves into setting the mission and conditions under which they were willing to fund or de-fund the war. I highlight these and more in my blog posts here and here.
on 02 May 2007 at 9:53 pm 2.Moonage
said …
Well, there is a minor distinction between the events of Bosnia and the events occurring at this time. In the case of Iraq, Congress authorized the President to take action. In the case of Bosnia, they did not. Secondly, Congress only was given the authority to even question the President during an AUTHORIZED conflict in 1973 specifically due to the Vietnam conflict. In the cases you cite, Congress did not directly authorize the President to directly engage an “enemy”. They authorized the President to follow United Nations orders. After a certain point, they decided to rescind and question participation as a member of the UN. Iraq is substabtially different than all the rest you cite in that Congress authorized direct confrontation with an “enemy of the United States”. Given that, aiding and abetting that enemy as defined by Congress would be defined as treason. Now, I have never seen in the Constitution or anything else where “aiding and abetting an enemy of the United Nations” falls into that same category.
Does that make sense?
on 02 May 2007 at 10:15 pm 3.Moonage
said …
As far as fulfilling the will of the people that elected them, that has never, never, been a part of the Constitution and would lose every single time in front of the Surpreme Court.
You must remember that the right to vote wasn’t even guaranteed by the Constitution. If the right to vote wasn’t guaranteed, how could the will of the people be? The Constitution isn’t a carte blanche declaration of rights for every single person, it sets the boundries of our government and how each of those functions within the government counter-balance each other and enumerates a very limited certain amount of protections the individual has and their recourse. However, those protections were initially limited to white, land-owning, debt-free citizens of the United States. And, it did NOT give the people the right to select the President. So, before we go assuming a lot of things are there when they are not, and leaping to conclusions based on those assumptions, let’s get one point clear. It is not Congress’s duty to reflect the will of the people. It is Congress’s duty to pass laws especially pertaining to the collection of taxes and the spending thereof in the pursuit of welfare of the United States as as whole.
That is their only obligation.
They are not in any shape, form, or fashion designated by the Constitution to participate in any way with the functioning of the military. Those duties and obligations are given to the President only.
And there is a reason why.
Congress has the right to impose unfair taxes that the President, and the people, may feel is not proper. If Congress could impose those taxes and ENFORCE the collection of them via the military, the Executive branch would not truly be the counter-balance it is designed to be. Therefore, as it stands now, Congress can pass a tax, but if the President chooses not to direct the enforcement of the collection of those taxes, the tax is moot.
So, do you STILL think it’s proper that Congress usurp the Executive Branch just because you don’t like the President?
on 03 May 2007 at 8:36 am 4.Moonage
said …
For what it’s worth, Congress missed by about 70 votes in over-riding the veto.
Will the Democrats re-submit the same garbage again or will they do what they’re supposed to and pass an actual spending bill and THEN take up political grandstanding with a bill of its own merit?