but its obviously not the same one the rest of us live in.
Your contention that the reason Democrats "have consistently lost on issues like FISA, Geneva, torture, Gitmo, habeas corpus, rendition, etc, etc, etc." is due to Unitary Executive theory is simply idiotic on its face and has no basis in reality.
They simply do not have a veto proof majority since the 2006 elections. They also want to protect the country without compromising our American values and Constitution but the "unitary executive" is unwilling to compromise on even the simplest issue.
That fact that you reduce these deliberations to a mere "win" or "lose " proposition undermines the entire effort against al Qeada and shows your pride for what it truly is, politics pure and simple.
The politics of fear, played by Bush and the Republican simply to bludgeon a political advantage out of the fear of terrorism to maintain a majority in Congress. With a majority you can reward the rich with more tax cuts at the expense of the war effort.
That being said, I am wondering, if , in your words, the President has absolute authority to prosecute the war and protect the citizens why is Congress required to do anything? Your inference that his constitutional mandate to protect the citizens also allows him to violate the constitution or existing law to do so is simply wrong.
No matter, consider the term Unitary Executive theory. Operative word...theory. In fact it is a theory of Constitutional interpretation. In that regard the only thing you said in that whole passage that has any basis in truth is that he doesn’t work for Congress.
the President is vested with absolute authority to prosecute the war and protect the citizens. These inherent powers cannot be bound by law.
Not true . The President is bound by the laws of the land just as the rest of the citizens in the Republic. What is true is that the President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to attacks on the United States. The powers can and have been "bound"by law in form of the War Powers Act.
In the law Congress acknowledged the inherent executive power in the but under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate.
After Congress declares war, as they did with the AUMF against al Qaeda...
Nice try, but not true . No declaration of war was ever made by the United States Congress. What is true is
"that the President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. " JOHN C. YOO Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel
Now back to the question you dodged.
the Congress is supposed to back the president and allow him to prosecute the war....It's in the Constitution.
Please show us the clause in the Constitution that states
the Congress is supposed to back the president, and allow him to prosecute the war.
or words to that effect.One more thing
If he wins, Republicans will support his efforts to destroy al Qaeda
is utter and total bullshit. We'll see. I give it two weeks after the inauguration until the Republicans are not backing the President.
by
MRFred on
05/11/2008 10:12:55 PM EST
[
Parent ]
