Brooklyn Red Leg
03-23-2011, 12:15 PM
I won't say which particular website (since I don't want to get a traffic hit) but lets say that it has the words Democrat party "below ground" in its name. ;)
Xithras http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/donor.gif (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-23-11 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #27 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=724411&mesg_id=724851)
32. Were you around at the beginning of the Iraq war?
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/avatars/peace_kitty.gif Edited on Wed Mar-23-11 02:03 PM by Xithras
Believe me, these issues were hammered to death back then here on DU, and the consensus was about 95% that the WPR was unconstitutional. It's rather funny how opinions change when it's a Democrat giving the orders.
As I recall, the argument is that the blanket approval itself is unconstitutional because it amounts to a redelegation of Constitutionally assigned powers. It would be like Congress passing a resolution declaring that the President can draft and enact laws on his own without having to go through Congress. More accurately to this particular example, it would be like Congress passing a resolution declaring that the President can draft and enact laws without Congressional intervention, but only if he "explains" things to Congress, and for a limited time period.
That law would be blatantly unconstitutional. Congress cannot create dictators or monarchs, even if it wanted to. Congress cannot redelegate Constitutionally assigned powers to another branch of government without going through the amendment process.
Quite apt and to the point. Congress cannot delegate its powers to someone else. Just as in Iraq, the War Powers Resolution is not carte blanche for Obama to bomb countries at will. I wonder if this person be open to seeing that same observation in light of The Federal Reserve.
Xithras http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/donor.gif (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-23-11 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #27 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=724411&mesg_id=724851)
32. Were you around at the beginning of the Iraq war?
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/avatars/peace_kitty.gif Edited on Wed Mar-23-11 02:03 PM by Xithras
Believe me, these issues were hammered to death back then here on DU, and the consensus was about 95% that the WPR was unconstitutional. It's rather funny how opinions change when it's a Democrat giving the orders.
As I recall, the argument is that the blanket approval itself is unconstitutional because it amounts to a redelegation of Constitutionally assigned powers. It would be like Congress passing a resolution declaring that the President can draft and enact laws on his own without having to go through Congress. More accurately to this particular example, it would be like Congress passing a resolution declaring that the President can draft and enact laws without Congressional intervention, but only if he "explains" things to Congress, and for a limited time period.
That law would be blatantly unconstitutional. Congress cannot create dictators or monarchs, even if it wanted to. Congress cannot redelegate Constitutionally assigned powers to another branch of government without going through the amendment process.
Quite apt and to the point. Congress cannot delegate its powers to someone else. Just as in Iraq, the War Powers Resolution is not carte blanche for Obama to bomb countries at will. I wonder if this person be open to seeing that same observation in light of The Federal Reserve.