 masbury says: "The current War Powers Resolution is 'ineffective at best and unconstitutional at worst,' and should be scrapped" After watching Bush and the way he has splintered the powers, whilst taking supreme command, because of the war in Iraq. He has held Congress to ransom over Bills he wanted passed, though most knew they were wrong. Yes, there is a new definition of the roles of the different arms of power. Consultation and communication are needed.. This requires a Constitutional Amendment. The Executive branch is granted these powers in teh Constitution. The Congress gets the purse strings so they already have the power they need. The problem is, I suspect for the folks who are upset over Iraq, that Congress continues to fund. The Constitution is clear, Congress declares war, so no amedment is required, only a Congress with enough spine to fulfill their oaths of office. Former Secretaries of State Baker and Christopher were on the News Hour tonight, representing the commission that authored these recommendations. No constitutional amendment is under consideration. Their suggestion requires a continual consultation between the President and key leaders in Congress, and that the Congress must vote within 30 days on the support of military action. The panel included Republicans and Democrats, legislators and executive branch veterans. The issue of Iraq was not a major concern, merely the unworkability of the current War Powers Act. The panel expects criticism from extreme viewpoints on both sides of the balance of power debate, but urges passage within the f... I don't have any problem with consultation but I wouldn't a new law as it would end up in front of the Court and it would be ruled unconstitutional. The separation of power is pretty clear on this issue. Maybe be so, but it has been skewed to much to the Executive. The founding fathers never meant for the President to declare war unilaterally. |
View the Top Clips from July 8, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
