Hat tip to wiccantexan at clipmarks[/i]

When the Constitution was written, our Founding Fathers were very careful to include provisions that would prevent any one branch of the government from getting too much power and control, and thus becoming something more along the lines of a dictatorship. Robert Sheer writes - in an excellent editorial for "The Nation" magazine (reprinted by CBS, where is where I got the link) - that George W. Bush is exactly the kind of imperial president that the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid.

There's a lot more, including how Eisenhower's concerns about a "military-industrial complex" are both part of what the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent (though they wouldn't have necessarily thought of it in those same terms) *and* what Bush's Imperial Presidency is trying to ensure develops - and why this is a bad thing.

Go read it - it's not l

By the way, Congress STILL has the power to cut spending on the war. I don't see your point. Obviously, they choose NOT to cut funding or they would have. You assume the president has more power than he does. Seems like just a bunch of monkeys following each other to "out hate" Bush, rather than accept the fact that Congress retains an equal responsibility.

Well the President has been know to shift funds around, make signing statements that basically say "I'll do whatever the hell I want" among other things. This Presidency power grab has been extensive and it should stop, but no one is standing up to him.