Coply: Your last post is most concise, mature, and wise.
Thanks Sparrow for making that distinction of govt. vs. people
Thanks Sparrow for making that distinction of govt. vs. people
Last edited:
The Sickness of Canadian Anti-Americanism
- Thread starter I think not
- Start date
What did the US do to me?
It broke the world I live in while insisting that the world be re-created in its own image and be devoted to protecting the american way of life.
In the mid-90’s I played suerdo (a large drum) aboard a Brazilian carnival float (in Canada). We practiced our music for weeks; built our float for days; and finally pounded out a samba beat for hours. We sang our song. People danced.
Carnival is a joyous time where anybody can live a fantasy of their choice for a day. It must be a joyous fantasy though or nobody will dance with you. Floats normally represent neighbourhoods, and anybody can join a neighbourhood for a day—even people who don’t live there..
There is seriousness within joy however. Each float must have a social theme and a song. The theme is what we became for a day. Our float and all aboard, and all the marchers and dancers were ‘An Ark for A New World.’ We wore the black and white colours of a Brazilian African king (a god) known for wisdom.
Why am I writing this? Because even 15 years ago people from the barrios of Sao Paulo knew that we needed a new world, and knew that it would take wisdom beyond that of any single person or people. Perhaps the collective wisdom of everybody in the world might suffice, but it’s probably better to have the help of an African King.
What is so hard about that idea? How did we get new world order and globalization instead? How many must die before all the western king’s horses and all the king’s men figure out that it fell off the wall for good reason, and that it shouldn’t be put back together again.
We still need a new world and I’m still on my ark. Broken as my world was, my hope remains. I’ll continue to live the joy of my own experience and do what I can to find this new world. Mostly, I take responsibility for my own life and offer the respect to all things in my world that I wish for myself. I experience all the inherent risks of life in joy and do not judge what I have not experienced. If everybody did their own version of that then perhaps we would have our new world—or at least we would have less whining that governments are out of control and the people are scared. What is so hard about that? Just get on with it. Does what I write sound sick?
A small distinction: I was never in Nam or in direct combat. I maintained equipment by which bombers and other aircraft navigated instead. All veterans were treated the same. I wouldn’t have had it any other way.
It broke the world I live in while insisting that the world be re-created in its own image and be devoted to protecting the american way of life.
In the mid-90’s I played suerdo (a large drum) aboard a Brazilian carnival float (in Canada). We practiced our music for weeks; built our float for days; and finally pounded out a samba beat for hours. We sang our song. People danced.
Carnival is a joyous time where anybody can live a fantasy of their choice for a day. It must be a joyous fantasy though or nobody will dance with you. Floats normally represent neighbourhoods, and anybody can join a neighbourhood for a day—even people who don’t live there..
There is seriousness within joy however. Each float must have a social theme and a song. The theme is what we became for a day. Our float and all aboard, and all the marchers and dancers were ‘An Ark for A New World.’ We wore the black and white colours of a Brazilian African king (a god) known for wisdom.
Why am I writing this? Because even 15 years ago people from the barrios of Sao Paulo knew that we needed a new world, and knew that it would take wisdom beyond that of any single person or people. Perhaps the collective wisdom of everybody in the world might suffice, but it’s probably better to have the help of an African King.
What is so hard about that idea? How did we get new world order and globalization instead? How many must die before all the western king’s horses and all the king’s men figure out that it fell off the wall for good reason, and that it shouldn’t be put back together again.
We still need a new world and I’m still on my ark. Broken as my world was, my hope remains. I’ll continue to live the joy of my own experience and do what I can to find this new world. Mostly, I take responsibility for my own life and offer the respect to all things in my world that I wish for myself. I experience all the inherent risks of life in joy and do not judge what I have not experienced. If everybody did their own version of that then perhaps we would have our new world—or at least we would have less whining that governments are out of control and the people are scared. What is so hard about that? Just get on with it. Does what I write sound sick?
A small distinction: I was never in Nam or in direct combat. I maintained equipment by which bombers and other aircraft navigated instead. All veterans were treated the same. I wouldn’t have had it any other way.
You can fume and sputter all you like Jim that's your right, but if you think there aren't legitimate grievances behind why some feel the way they do, you deny them their truth and their experience of reality. Is that an American attribute or is it the machinations of the prejudiced?
---------------------------------------MikeyDB--------------------------------------------------------------
I think many of the grievances are legitimate, MikeyDB.
Sincerely.
But the grievances are highly selective while equal wrongs or even greater wrongs by others
are selectively ignored OR don't get the passion American hypocrisy inspires in you and others.
And why is that point important ?
Two reasons.
One reason has to do with the Zeitgeist narrative. Once the popular storyline takes hold,
peoples' opinions and even journalistic reporters are blind to anything that does not fit
the current storyline. An example are automatically blaming rich white college kids
without any evidence concerning any sexual accusation especially by a poor black woman.
I would do it too. IT FITS THE CURRENT ACCEPTABLE NARRATIVE.
Likewise so does the Sudan. China has all the muscle in the world in that country with its
oil interests and escapes worldwide pressure. China does NOT FIT THE CURRENT
STORYLINE, the zeitgeist which says America must do this.
The media echo chamber is full of little journalist echoes and readers who echo the same line.
The really bad thing here, is it makes us all blind to other possiblities and closes our
minds from seeking evidence contrary to the accepted world mind think.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And now the 2nd reason is even more important.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I use the example of a teacher and a bad child.
A good teacher knows they will receive no support when dealing with a bad child.
No one expects anything of the bad child, but they do expect more from the teacher
and exact a burden so high that the teacher is on their own with no unity, no support.
We read about teachers getting no support from the school admininstrators who
are afraid of parents lawsuits. And what's worse, the bad kids know this. They'll
tell the teacher no one can touch them, threaten them. This lack of fear has
the consequences of raising a large group of brats.
Dictators and evil people know this too.
You don't expect anything of them. You expect it from someone who holds out promise.
And the bad guys hide behind that circus of expectations.
Lack of fear. Lack of consequences.
NOT GOOD.
Who causes the problems first ?
Why it's the teacher, not the child.
---------------------------------------MikeyDB--------------------------------------------------------------
I think many of the grievances are legitimate, MikeyDB.
Sincerely.
But the grievances are highly selective while equal wrongs or even greater wrongs by others
are selectively ignored OR don't get the passion American hypocrisy inspires in you and others.
And why is that point important ?
Two reasons.
One reason has to do with the Zeitgeist narrative. Once the popular storyline takes hold,
peoples' opinions and even journalistic reporters are blind to anything that does not fit
the current storyline. An example are automatically blaming rich white college kids
without any evidence concerning any sexual accusation especially by a poor black woman.
I would do it too. IT FITS THE CURRENT ACCEPTABLE NARRATIVE.
Likewise so does the Sudan. China has all the muscle in the world in that country with its
oil interests and escapes worldwide pressure. China does NOT FIT THE CURRENT
STORYLINE, the zeitgeist which says America must do this.
The media echo chamber is full of little journalist echoes and readers who echo the same line.
The really bad thing here, is it makes us all blind to other possiblities and closes our
minds from seeking evidence contrary to the accepted world mind think.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And now the 2nd reason is even more important.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I use the example of a teacher and a bad child.
A good teacher knows they will receive no support when dealing with a bad child.
No one expects anything of the bad child, but they do expect more from the teacher
and exact a burden so high that the teacher is on their own with no unity, no support.
We read about teachers getting no support from the school admininstrators who
are afraid of parents lawsuits. And what's worse, the bad kids know this. They'll
tell the teacher no one can touch them, threaten them. This lack of fear has
the consequences of raising a large group of brats.
Dictators and evil people know this too.
You don't expect anything of them. You expect it from someone who holds out promise.
And the bad guys hide behind that circus of expectations.
Lack of fear. Lack of consequences.
NOT GOOD.
Who causes the problems first ?
Why it's the teacher, not the child.
I have been troubled about how to deferentiate between the good and the bad Americans. If we make a distinction between the American people and thier government we admit another problem, namely the disconnect between the people and thier government which invariably leads to the responsibility invested in the electorate for the government. In other words the American people cannot be excused, they (the people) cannot be left unchastised, thiers is the responsibility to effect the changes necessary to advance the cause of peace.If we are to consider only the governments guilt for the present state of affairs then we exonerate the people, something we cannot do in a democracy. Even if we allow for the third element (the invisable hand) of the Corporate Security complex as the ultimate source of the discord we still cannot forgive the people for the simple reason that the fix lies with the electorate, the correction will not come from above. There is no way arround this conclusion. Therefore we find the American people guilty of crimes against humanity.
This may seem unreasonable, it isn't, the progressive thought of American dissent has come to the same conclusion.:wave:
This may seem unreasonable, it isn't, the progressive thought of American dissent has come to the same conclusion.:wave:
With all due appology Jim, Ameica writes the zeitgeist journal and while writing plays loose and free with notions like truth and accountability. When a monster like Idi Amin or Pol Pot decimate a nation, no the voices are silenced... in this respect I agree with your observations. However when a people ..the people of the United States are paying for..in money and blood an action undertaken by their military that is both wrong headed and ill-advised to say nothing of spin applied through the American press to color the rationale as something other than it is...that's a zeitgeist journal entry in every way entirely equal to the mind-control and misguidance of many dictators and mad men that have brought the world to its knees.
If a people is willing to accept i.e. not hold their administration responsible for those lies and the charade presented as rationale..in the face of truth that is revealed...there's something wrong at the very heart of what a nation believes thinks and feels.
If a people is willing to accept i.e. not hold their administration responsible for those lies and the charade presented as rationale..in the face of truth that is revealed...there's something wrong at the very heart of what a nation believes thinks and feels.
Jimmoyer Quote
" But the grievances are highly selective while equal wrongs or even greater wrongs by others
are selectively ignored OR don't get the passion American hypocrisy inspires in you and others."
Once again, no other guilty or potentially guilty nation has declared openly and persued militarily thier expressed intent at global domination.The American problem is not one of exclusivity but one of long standing immeadiacy and magnitude.This is the source of the present passion and not simple discrimination based on mindless prejudice against the American people.
" But the grievances are highly selective while equal wrongs or even greater wrongs by others
are selectively ignored OR don't get the passion American hypocrisy inspires in you and others."
Once again, no other guilty or potentially guilty nation has declared openly and persued militarily thier expressed intent at global domination.The American problem is not one of exclusivity but one of long standing immeadiacy and magnitude.This is the source of the present passion and not simple discrimination based on mindless prejudice against the American people.
The socialist strong hold, the once Soviet Socialist Republic of, had its red eyes locked squarely on forcing socialism down the throats of every last nation. The nazi regime of Germany's ugly past, tried and failed at it as well. Did they not state their dreams of conquest clearly in word and action. Or is there actions not included, due to their socialist ideologies?
America's down fall will be its foreign policy and the Imperialist agenda it holds so dear. Manifest destiny is still an integral part of the mind set of the US political movement.
Yes Bear and I think that's what Beve is saying although I wouldn't presume to do his talking for him.
The United States has openly declared as much for far longer than any other nation. Not only has the charade of "the Red Menace" been employed as rationale for establishing oppressive regimes in Nicaragua, Iraq, a dozen places around the world, the U.S. has ACTED on this premise. If you can Bear please eduate me on the number of military involvements the Russians undertook over the past sixty years and compare that to the number of military incursions the U.S. has made over the same time.
The United States has openly declared as much for far longer than any other nation. Not only has the charade of "the Red Menace" been employed as rationale for establishing oppressive regimes in Nicaragua, Iraq, a dozen places around the world, the U.S. has ACTED on this premise. If you can Bear please eduate me on the number of military involvements the Russians undertook over the past sixty years and compare that to the number of military incursions the U.S. has made over the same time.
I am well aware of the difference in numbers of military actions Mikey, so what you are saying is, it is that they are killing, it is numbers of those killed, that makes it more criminal?
A criminal act is a criminal act.
People seem to overlook something which occurs whenever there is a disaster of major proportions in our world..... Some of the first questions asked are: What will the U.S. do?
Will the U.S. send in troops?
When they do they are maligned for their foreign policy but expectations run high the U.S. will do "something" whether it is right or wrong.
At the present time congress is voting on an issue regarding Iraq - an independent "democratic" nation who supposedly is autonomous now in its governing body regardless of the civil warfare it now engages in..... and congress of the U.S. is politicizing further assistance for that nation by the U.S. military by pandering to their "pre-election" needs.....
It would seem even in warfare the two major political parties have to play "election games" with the lives of the Iraqi people. If you are going to criticize the nation.... find something viable to write about not vague hegemony and second-hand grizzle. The U.S. faces many international struggles and conflicts in which they are actively involved, but I see nothing in them to incite the interfering criticism by the Canadian authors as I read here.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm1347.cfm
February 6, 2007
Congress's Iraq Resolutions: Without Resolve or Constitutional Purpose
by Todd F. Gaziano, Steven Groves and Brian Walsh
WebMemo #1347
Will the U.S. send in troops?
When they do they are maligned for their foreign policy but expectations run high the U.S. will do "something" whether it is right or wrong.
At the present time congress is voting on an issue regarding Iraq - an independent "democratic" nation who supposedly is autonomous now in its governing body regardless of the civil warfare it now engages in..... and congress of the U.S. is politicizing further assistance for that nation by the U.S. military by pandering to their "pre-election" needs.....
It would seem even in warfare the two major political parties have to play "election games" with the lives of the Iraqi people. If you are going to criticize the nation.... find something viable to write about not vague hegemony and second-hand grizzle. The U.S. faces many international struggles and conflicts in which they are actively involved, but I see nothing in them to incite the interfering criticism by the Canadian authors as I read here.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm1347.cfm
February 6, 2007
Congress's Iraq Resolutions: Without Resolve or Constitutional Purpose
by Todd F. Gaziano, Steven Groves and Brian Walsh
WebMemo #1347
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]Congress may soon consider one or more non-binding resolutions expressing its "disagreement" with President Bush's plan to augment American forces in Iraq by 21,500 troops.[1] Such resolutions condemning the Commander in Chief's considered strategy to achieve victory and promote peace and stability in Iraq may play well on the campaign trail, but they are an abuse of Congress's authority and an unreasonable interference with the President's exclusive constitutional authority to make strategic military decisions during wartime.
Congressional second-guessing of executive responsibilities has become sadly common, and few are willing to speak up to defend any policy that seems unpopular. But no degree of supposed unpopularity[2] can render constitutional actions unconstitutional--notwithstanding the confusion on such matters by the mainstream media and misstatements by academics or others with ideological axes to grind.
As most Members of Congress know, their control over the troops available to the President during a war or other conflict is limited to the number of commissioned officers Congress authorizes and the Senate confirms and the overall number of non-commissioned soldiers Congress authorizes and appropriates money for. The President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to commit any number of these soldiers to battle, including his authority to augment the forces in Iraq, is almost absolute, with minor exceptions that are not relevant to the pending resolutions.[3] Congress expressly authorized the President to prosecute the war in Iraq in any manner that he determines necessary and appropriate, but even a revocation of that authorization would not change the President's constitutional duty to use any and all military forces Congress funds to defeat enemy soldiers bent on America's destruction.
Congress does have sufficient power to starve the President of the funds necessary to win the war, but it cannot usurp the President's strategic command over troops that are funded. Given the important but distinct powers each branch possesses, it is, at best, irresponsible meddling for Congress to publicly disparage the President's command decisions. At worst, it is an attempted interference with his military command that is inconsistent with our constitutional design.
Congress's Broad, but Limited, War Powers
The Constitution grants both Congress and the President considerable authority over war and approving peace treaties. To successfully win a protracted war, the Framers' design requires some concerted action by both political branches. The Framers created an energetic President who could execute tactical decision unhindered by legislative direction or legislative committee interference. But in the long run, a determined Congress has sufficient power to bend any President to its will, although it must then take responsibility for doing so.
Though Congress is limited to those powers specifically enumerated in Article I, those powers are not insubstantial. Some of the most important are:
Presidential Authority During Wartime
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...." Many of the resolutions under consideration proceed from a mistaken understanding of that phrase. Some argue that making the President the Commander in Chief means nothing more than that the military shall have a civilian commander and, thus, that Congress can command the President in his command. This would render the Commander-in-Chief power completely empty, or at least impose no limitations on how Congress could alter it.
The constitutional Separation of Powers would collapse if any one branch had the power to define the powers of the other branches, rather than the power to check the other branches with its own powers. The Commander-in-Chief power can no more be defined by Congress than the President can unilaterally define what the Congress's spending power means (e.g., by issuing line item vetoes or impounding appropriated funds). The Commander-in-Chief power does not trump any of Congress's enumerated powers, but it does necessarily include the power to decide which soldiers at his disposal to detail to different stations or battlefields, which to hold in reserve, which to commit to particular operations, and precisely when to do any of these things.
Moreover, since the beginning of our Republic, Presidents have exerted military force on foreign soil without congressional authorization. Congressional declarations of war have never been deemed essential to the President's conduct of military action.[8] One among many possible examples illustrates the scope and magnitude of the President's war powers. In 1962, John F. Kennedy used military force to blockade Cuba--a traditional act of war under established international law. That blockade brought America to the brink of nuclear war in a standoff with the Soviet Union over the missiles it was providing to Fidel Castro's regime. President Kennedy neither sought nor secured permission or approval from Congress. Indeed, while the United States has used military force on over 100 occasions, Congress has declared war only five times.[9]
Congress Is Ill-Suited to Prosecute a War
Although policymakers are not at liberty to tinker with the constitutional design except by amendment, history has vindicated the choices made by the Framers. Those choices allow a determined Congress to end a war (if it uses its own powers), and it grants the President independence of action and ultimate responsibility for prosecuting any war Congress funds. The Framers knew that successful war efforts require decisiveness, fixed will, and determined leadership that does not vacillate in the face of adversity and setbacks. Timidity, equivocation, and hand-wringing compromises almost always result in defeat.
The Framers of our Constitution understood that war-making powers are best vested in a single Executive. They rejected a proposal for the executive power to be shared by a committee or privy council, even one wholly within the executive branch.[10] In contrast to the "energy" and "responsibility" they intended the President to have, they sought to make congressional action more cumbersome, as befitting "the most dangerous branch." Thus by design, Congress's decision-making process is often tedious and inconclusive. The ultimate decisions of Congress are, invariably, political compromises. The Framers sought to ensure such deliberations and internal checks as they related to the government's domestic actions, but they expressly rejected this result for "external threats." For external threats, they wanted to ensure presidential secrecy, dispatch, and decisiveness.
Congressional deliberation is perfectly appropriate for passing legislation, particularly regarding domestic concerns, but not for prosecuting--much less micromanaging--a war. Whether the President's war plans are flawed or not, Congress has not yet devised--and does not even propose to devise--a single set of comprehensive recommendations for the war in Iraq on which it can agree.
The recent hearings and debate to confirm General David Patreaus to command U.S. forces in Iraq are indicative of why Congress is unfit to prosecute a war. The Senate unanimously confirmed General Petraeus--a proponent of the "surge" strategy.[11] That the Senate would confirm General Petraeus so easily and subsequently pass a resolution disputing the strategy he believes is necessary for victory is an unjustifiable inconsistency.
Irresponsible Resolutions
Any attempt to impose unconstitutional benchmarks or reporting requirements on the Executive's war-making power would be void. Perhaps for this reason, most of the provisions of Congress's questionable Iraq resolutions are non-binding. This has caused some to suggest that there is no harm in Congress expressing its opinion that the troop increase would be useless and signaling to the world that its support for the war may soon end. To be sure, it is not unconstitutional for Congress to strengthen the resolve of our enemies by signaling that it may cut off funding and interfere with the President's prosecution of the war. But that makes such action no less harmful to the success of the war.[12]
While not unprecedented (Congress has acted imprudently before), congressional resolutions expressing disagreement with the President's tactical war decisions are still inappropriate and potentially irresponsible. In short, they are inconsistent with the responsibilities that Congress shares with the President for the success of any military action in which the nation is engaged. Indeed, Congress's independent authority to terminate a war with its own powers is what renders so problematic its public criticisms of, and attempted meddling with, the President's independent authority to execute his war plans. Congress's Iraq resolutions violate the comity Congress owes the President's exercise of his constitutional duties; attempt to evade the responsibility Congress shares with the President for the war; and betray the duty Congress owes to the nation not to needlessly make victory more difficult.
The following analogy from the corporate context illustrates this point. The board of directors of a leading auto manufacturing company is expected to publicly support the company's major initiatives, at least until it ended any such project. For example, imagine that the board approves the CEO's bold plan, which requires the company to devote enormous resources to producing a new, energy-efficient car with an unproven technology. In this, the CEO is staking the company's reputation on the success of the endeavor, which he acknowledges is risky but may be the only plan that will maintain the company's leadership position for the long run.
Now imagine a few years into the project that there is a shift in the board, and the majority elects a new chairman opposed to the plan. Rather than seek to end the project, as the board could do, the chairman grants interviews to leading business magazines and declares that he strongly supports the company's workers but believes they are being terribly misused. He is angry that they have been set up to fail, because no set of workers could ever design and build a car as envisioned in the CEO's plan. Furthermore, even if the car could be designed and built as advertised, consumers would never buy it. In fact, consumers have never wanted a car of this type. Indeed, the company should never have attempted to enter or win in this market.
If this hypothetical came to pass, it would be taught in every business school in America as an example of the most irresponsible board in the land, one that breached its duty to stockholders and the company's employees. The board can communicate its concerns to the CEO privately without damaging the company's stock price, providing valuable support to the company's competitors, and demoralizing its workers. But if the board pushed its agenda publicly, it would appear to any reasonable observer that the board does not want the company's plan to succeed and that the board is more concerned with ruining the CEO than in the company's success. Some stockholders might be fascinated by corporate squabbling and infighting, but the great majority would simply want the company to succeed.
There is more at stake in the Afghan and Iraq wars than in business-school lessons. But like the example above, Congress must content itself with its real powers and use them responsibly. American stockholders want a victory in Afghanistan and Iraq. They do not want irresponsible grandstanding.
Conclusion
Resolutions being debated in Congress that undermine America's resolve will not assist U.S. armed forces in achieving success in Iraq. Sadly, the possibility that the resolutions may aid U.S. enemies in Iraq is seemingly dismissed by proponents of the resolution with a shrug of their shoulders. The only thing that the resolution is certain to accomplish is to undermine the work U.S. soldiers have been giving their lives to complete.[13]
The presidential election is the appropriate constitutional process for determining who should lead the nation in times of war. The 2004 presidential election--the only poll that really counts--reflected the American public's willingness to persevere to victory in Iraq. The President prevailed against an opponent with exemplary antiwar credentials and who (more or less) opposed the President's plan for Iraq. Since the election, U.S. soldiers have not lost courage, hope, or the will to fight and help secure Iraq. Nor have the Iraqi people abandoned their desire for free elections and self-government. For Congress to throw up its hands in despair and pass a resolution condemning the President's last, and possibly best, chance to achieve success in Iraq would be petulant and shortsighted.
Todd Gaziano is the Director of, and Brian Walsh is Senior Legal Research Fellow in, the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Steven Groves is the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation.
[/FONT]
Congressional second-guessing of executive responsibilities has become sadly common, and few are willing to speak up to defend any policy that seems unpopular. But no degree of supposed unpopularity[2] can render constitutional actions unconstitutional--notwithstanding the confusion on such matters by the mainstream media and misstatements by academics or others with ideological axes to grind.
As most Members of Congress know, their control over the troops available to the President during a war or other conflict is limited to the number of commissioned officers Congress authorizes and the Senate confirms and the overall number of non-commissioned soldiers Congress authorizes and appropriates money for. The President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to commit any number of these soldiers to battle, including his authority to augment the forces in Iraq, is almost absolute, with minor exceptions that are not relevant to the pending resolutions.[3] Congress expressly authorized the President to prosecute the war in Iraq in any manner that he determines necessary and appropriate, but even a revocation of that authorization would not change the President's constitutional duty to use any and all military forces Congress funds to defeat enemy soldiers bent on America's destruction.
Congress does have sufficient power to starve the President of the funds necessary to win the war, but it cannot usurp the President's strategic command over troops that are funded. Given the important but distinct powers each branch possesses, it is, at best, irresponsible meddling for Congress to publicly disparage the President's command decisions. At worst, it is an attempted interference with his military command that is inconsistent with our constitutional design.
Congress's Broad, but Limited, War Powers
The Constitution grants both Congress and the President considerable authority over war and approving peace treaties. To successfully win a protracted war, the Framers' design requires some concerted action by both political branches. The Framers created an energetic President who could execute tactical decision unhindered by legislative direction or legislative committee interference. But in the long run, a determined Congress has sufficient power to bend any President to its will, although it must then take responsibility for doing so.
Though Congress is limited to those powers specifically enumerated in Article I, those powers are not insubstantial. Some of the most important are:
- The power to raise and support a standing army and navy. Any protracted modern war requires supplemental appropriations far exceeding the military's baseline budget. Mere inaction by Congress is all that is necessary to defund modern wars.
- The power to "declare war," which clarifies certain international rights and obligations during an ongoing hostility.[4]
- The power to define whether, and under what circumstances, the President may call forth the militias of the several states into national service.
- The power to define the offenses against the laws of war.
- The power to make general rules of military justice for the armed forces.[5]
Presidential Authority During Wartime
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...." Many of the resolutions under consideration proceed from a mistaken understanding of that phrase. Some argue that making the President the Commander in Chief means nothing more than that the military shall have a civilian commander and, thus, that Congress can command the President in his command. This would render the Commander-in-Chief power completely empty, or at least impose no limitations on how Congress could alter it.
The constitutional Separation of Powers would collapse if any one branch had the power to define the powers of the other branches, rather than the power to check the other branches with its own powers. The Commander-in-Chief power can no more be defined by Congress than the President can unilaterally define what the Congress's spending power means (e.g., by issuing line item vetoes or impounding appropriated funds). The Commander-in-Chief power does not trump any of Congress's enumerated powers, but it does necessarily include the power to decide which soldiers at his disposal to detail to different stations or battlefields, which to hold in reserve, which to commit to particular operations, and precisely when to do any of these things.
Moreover, since the beginning of our Republic, Presidents have exerted military force on foreign soil without congressional authorization. Congressional declarations of war have never been deemed essential to the President's conduct of military action.[8] One among many possible examples illustrates the scope and magnitude of the President's war powers. In 1962, John F. Kennedy used military force to blockade Cuba--a traditional act of war under established international law. That blockade brought America to the brink of nuclear war in a standoff with the Soviet Union over the missiles it was providing to Fidel Castro's regime. President Kennedy neither sought nor secured permission or approval from Congress. Indeed, while the United States has used military force on over 100 occasions, Congress has declared war only five times.[9]
Congress Is Ill-Suited to Prosecute a War
Although policymakers are not at liberty to tinker with the constitutional design except by amendment, history has vindicated the choices made by the Framers. Those choices allow a determined Congress to end a war (if it uses its own powers), and it grants the President independence of action and ultimate responsibility for prosecuting any war Congress funds. The Framers knew that successful war efforts require decisiveness, fixed will, and determined leadership that does not vacillate in the face of adversity and setbacks. Timidity, equivocation, and hand-wringing compromises almost always result in defeat.
The Framers of our Constitution understood that war-making powers are best vested in a single Executive. They rejected a proposal for the executive power to be shared by a committee or privy council, even one wholly within the executive branch.[10] In contrast to the "energy" and "responsibility" they intended the President to have, they sought to make congressional action more cumbersome, as befitting "the most dangerous branch." Thus by design, Congress's decision-making process is often tedious and inconclusive. The ultimate decisions of Congress are, invariably, political compromises. The Framers sought to ensure such deliberations and internal checks as they related to the government's domestic actions, but they expressly rejected this result for "external threats." For external threats, they wanted to ensure presidential secrecy, dispatch, and decisiveness.
Congressional deliberation is perfectly appropriate for passing legislation, particularly regarding domestic concerns, but not for prosecuting--much less micromanaging--a war. Whether the President's war plans are flawed or not, Congress has not yet devised--and does not even propose to devise--a single set of comprehensive recommendations for the war in Iraq on which it can agree.
The recent hearings and debate to confirm General David Patreaus to command U.S. forces in Iraq are indicative of why Congress is unfit to prosecute a war. The Senate unanimously confirmed General Petraeus--a proponent of the "surge" strategy.[11] That the Senate would confirm General Petraeus so easily and subsequently pass a resolution disputing the strategy he believes is necessary for victory is an unjustifiable inconsistency.
Irresponsible Resolutions
Any attempt to impose unconstitutional benchmarks or reporting requirements on the Executive's war-making power would be void. Perhaps for this reason, most of the provisions of Congress's questionable Iraq resolutions are non-binding. This has caused some to suggest that there is no harm in Congress expressing its opinion that the troop increase would be useless and signaling to the world that its support for the war may soon end. To be sure, it is not unconstitutional for Congress to strengthen the resolve of our enemies by signaling that it may cut off funding and interfere with the President's prosecution of the war. But that makes such action no less harmful to the success of the war.[12]
While not unprecedented (Congress has acted imprudently before), congressional resolutions expressing disagreement with the President's tactical war decisions are still inappropriate and potentially irresponsible. In short, they are inconsistent with the responsibilities that Congress shares with the President for the success of any military action in which the nation is engaged. Indeed, Congress's independent authority to terminate a war with its own powers is what renders so problematic its public criticisms of, and attempted meddling with, the President's independent authority to execute his war plans. Congress's Iraq resolutions violate the comity Congress owes the President's exercise of his constitutional duties; attempt to evade the responsibility Congress shares with the President for the war; and betray the duty Congress owes to the nation not to needlessly make victory more difficult.
The following analogy from the corporate context illustrates this point. The board of directors of a leading auto manufacturing company is expected to publicly support the company's major initiatives, at least until it ended any such project. For example, imagine that the board approves the CEO's bold plan, which requires the company to devote enormous resources to producing a new, energy-efficient car with an unproven technology. In this, the CEO is staking the company's reputation on the success of the endeavor, which he acknowledges is risky but may be the only plan that will maintain the company's leadership position for the long run.
Now imagine a few years into the project that there is a shift in the board, and the majority elects a new chairman opposed to the plan. Rather than seek to end the project, as the board could do, the chairman grants interviews to leading business magazines and declares that he strongly supports the company's workers but believes they are being terribly misused. He is angry that they have been set up to fail, because no set of workers could ever design and build a car as envisioned in the CEO's plan. Furthermore, even if the car could be designed and built as advertised, consumers would never buy it. In fact, consumers have never wanted a car of this type. Indeed, the company should never have attempted to enter or win in this market.
If this hypothetical came to pass, it would be taught in every business school in America as an example of the most irresponsible board in the land, one that breached its duty to stockholders and the company's employees. The board can communicate its concerns to the CEO privately without damaging the company's stock price, providing valuable support to the company's competitors, and demoralizing its workers. But if the board pushed its agenda publicly, it would appear to any reasonable observer that the board does not want the company's plan to succeed and that the board is more concerned with ruining the CEO than in the company's success. Some stockholders might be fascinated by corporate squabbling and infighting, but the great majority would simply want the company to succeed.
There is more at stake in the Afghan and Iraq wars than in business-school lessons. But like the example above, Congress must content itself with its real powers and use them responsibly. American stockholders want a victory in Afghanistan and Iraq. They do not want irresponsible grandstanding.
Conclusion
Resolutions being debated in Congress that undermine America's resolve will not assist U.S. armed forces in achieving success in Iraq. Sadly, the possibility that the resolutions may aid U.S. enemies in Iraq is seemingly dismissed by proponents of the resolution with a shrug of their shoulders. The only thing that the resolution is certain to accomplish is to undermine the work U.S. soldiers have been giving their lives to complete.[13]
The presidential election is the appropriate constitutional process for determining who should lead the nation in times of war. The 2004 presidential election--the only poll that really counts--reflected the American public's willingness to persevere to victory in Iraq. The President prevailed against an opponent with exemplary antiwar credentials and who (more or less) opposed the President's plan for Iraq. Since the election, U.S. soldiers have not lost courage, hope, or the will to fight and help secure Iraq. Nor have the Iraqi people abandoned their desire for free elections and self-government. For Congress to throw up its hands in despair and pass a resolution condemning the President's last, and possibly best, chance to achieve success in Iraq would be petulant and shortsighted.
Todd Gaziano is the Director of, and Brian Walsh is Senior Legal Research Fellow in, the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Steven Groves is the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation.
[/FONT]
No Bear...swing and a miss....
For the people of the United States to blindly accept that the woes of America...billions on military that could feed house and clothe Americans...young men and women lost in senseless bloodshed...all the terrible consequences of lying to your people about who and what you are has given the people of America the impression that it is only America that will stand it is only America that has the right the "duty" to act like the world-cop. That's simply not the case.
American administrations have promulgated the notion of dire necessity and convinced the people that regardless of the carnage the costs the growing resentment in the world that they must blindly back the war-mongers. Try telling the average American who's survived Katrina or other major tragedies that their well-being and their importance to the Whitehouse comes even close to the efforts we've seen for forty years to build and expand on the military industrial complex that seeks to control not only spending but the thought-processes of Americans...
For the people of the United States to blindly accept that the woes of America...billions on military that could feed house and clothe Americans...young men and women lost in senseless bloodshed...all the terrible consequences of lying to your people about who and what you are has given the people of America the impression that it is only America that will stand it is only America that has the right the "duty" to act like the world-cop. That's simply not the case.
American administrations have promulgated the notion of dire necessity and convinced the people that regardless of the carnage the costs the growing resentment in the world that they must blindly back the war-mongers. Try telling the average American who's survived Katrina or other major tragedies that their well-being and their importance to the Whitehouse comes even close to the efforts we've seen for forty years to build and expand on the military industrial complex that seeks to control not only spending but the thought-processes of Americans...
Curiosity
The entire Iraq situation is a situation of the making of the American government. If we can agree that the hocus pocus of WMDs was a lie..or at least a concept founded much more in wishing than fact, everything that proceeds from that effort is bound to be seeded with contempt corruption and disingenuousness... how could it be otherwise?
America has certainly helped millions, but the off-setting dynamic to that is a world that is pushed closer to unimaginable destruction...
Can I put you down in my journal as someone who believes that armageddon is appropriate if underwritten by america?
The entire Iraq situation is a situation of the making of the American government. If we can agree that the hocus pocus of WMDs was a lie..or at least a concept founded much more in wishing than fact, everything that proceeds from that effort is bound to be seeded with contempt corruption and disingenuousness... how could it be otherwise?
America has certainly helped millions, but the off-setting dynamic to that is a world that is pushed closer to unimaginable destruction...
Can I put you down in my journal as someone who believes that armageddon is appropriate if underwritten by america?
RUSSIA,
Kept its people in the intellectual dark, fed only state authorised brain food, kept impovrished and near death, unless of couse they were one of the more equal people, ruled by fear and intimidation. Crushed millions, abolished religions. Killed to maintain power.
NAZI GERMANY,
Lied, misled and decieved its people, ruled by fear and intimidation. Slaughtered millions, crushed millions, killed to maintain and spread its power.
USA,
Misleads its people with bias and bigoted news, uses threats of FORCE to coerse some of the public to follow along, uses lies and hysteria to scare the rest. Kills in the name of corporate America, keeps is masses working hard and following the latest sports figure, to keep their minds of the reality of it all.
He swings and hits it outta the park!!!
Not one is any less nor anymore bad then the other. It is teh selective reasoning that makes me take the positions that you all love to jump up my ass for. If everyone weighed the issues as even as they tell themselves they do, you would see that I am not a 'reicht winger', but like just as left as you.
Kept its people in the intellectual dark, fed only state authorised brain food, kept impovrished and near death, unless of couse they were one of the more equal people, ruled by fear and intimidation. Crushed millions, abolished religions. Killed to maintain power.
NAZI GERMANY,
Lied, misled and decieved its people, ruled by fear and intimidation. Slaughtered millions, crushed millions, killed to maintain and spread its power.
USA,
Misleads its people with bias and bigoted news, uses threats of FORCE to coerse some of the public to follow along, uses lies and hysteria to scare the rest. Kills in the name of corporate America, keeps is masses working hard and following the latest sports figure, to keep their minds of the reality of it all.
He swings and hits it outta the park!!!
Not one is any less nor anymore bad then the other. It is teh selective reasoning that makes me take the positions that you all love to jump up my ass for. If everyone weighed the issues as even as they tell themselves they do, you would see that I am not a 'reicht winger', but like just as left as you.
Mikey - what did the U.S. do to Canadians ?
You state now that the world is "pushed closer to unimaginable destruction" because of the U.S.?
And to think Kreskin called me "obsessed"...... I have no response for you MickeyDB....your statement does not deserve one.
Bear
This thread focuses on Candian Anti-Americanism...
I've suggested that one of the principal reasons why there's a goodly amount of anti-American sentiment is for absolutely valid reasons. If you want a "Canadian Anti-Russia thread go for it, but I thought we agreed a long time ago that poltics and truth never lay down in the same bed together whether thats the Kremlin, Ottawa or Washington DC....
Thieves and liars one and all.
This thread focuses on Candian Anti-Americanism...
I've suggested that one of the principal reasons why there's a goodly amount of anti-American sentiment is for absolutely valid reasons. If you want a "Canadian Anti-Russia thread go for it, but I thought we agreed a long time ago that poltics and truth never lay down in the same bed together whether thats the Kremlin, Ottawa or Washington DC....
Thieves and liars one and all.
Who has more nuclear potential than anyone else on the planet?
Who has exercised more military interventions since the end of the Second World War than any other nation on the planet?
Who has maintained funding and military support for oppressive regimes all over the world at a level unmatched by any other nation on the planet?
Who makes it their business to tell anyone who they get upset with that if you don't do it MY way we'll shoot your A$$.
Who throws out the rule book on democracy when a nation of people (Palestinians) votes in a government they don't like?
Who throws out the agreements and treaties with other nations on a more frewquent basis than does the United States of America?
Who applies the logic of non-intervention in the Middle East while sending billions in dollars and thousands in lives all over the world to protect their "interests"...oil...sugar...minerals of all kinds...
Fill in the blank for me Curiosity....That nation is______________________.
Who has exercised more military interventions since the end of the Second World War than any other nation on the planet?
Who has maintained funding and military support for oppressive regimes all over the world at a level unmatched by any other nation on the planet?
Who makes it their business to tell anyone who they get upset with that if you don't do it MY way we'll shoot your A$$.
Who throws out the rule book on democracy when a nation of people (Palestinians) votes in a government they don't like?
Who throws out the agreements and treaties with other nations on a more frewquent basis than does the United States of America?
Who applies the logic of non-intervention in the Middle East while sending billions in dollars and thousands in lives all over the world to protect their "interests"...oil...sugar...minerals of all kinds...
Fill in the blank for me Curiosity....That nation is______________________.
Yes we have agreed on said things, but I am challenging the validity of the claims that it is the actions of the US foriegn policy as it were, that is the essence of the issue of Canadas anti Americanism.
I have said it before and I'll say it again, it is based in the national inferiority complex, formulated and fueled by the socialist left trying to squash our natura and true history, to make it again in the rivisionist image.
My only other concern and the reason for my continued post regarding the likes of Russia, nazism and so on. Those that are trying valiantly to explain and or justify anti Americanism as solely the fault of the US and it actions, seem to be selective in what they find offensive and how they allow that to guide their commentary. I didn't just show up, I have read many of the old people stating the same old thing over and over.
Bear
I think we've reached a parting of the way here. I'm Canadian because I was born here. If you take the time to read what I've written regarding the Canadian government I think what you'd find is as sharp a criticism for this government as the American government. I stopped being a citizen of Canada a long time ago..and started being a citizen of the world. It is the world that stands to lose in the upward spiral of conflict and destruction and it is in my opinion the United States of America that owns the lions share of pushing the limits on how long other nations will succumb to American lies and beligerance.
Even it you're "right" even if you're "king-o-the-hill" in a "moral" sense, the practices of both the market-economy as directed by the United States and the on-going militarism that's uniquely American in scope and effect....we're all dead....
It's kinda like art that way Bear...you might not have a discrete definition that will please everyone and have unanimity in what "art" really is.... but when our hearts rise at the glory of a sunrise or a sunset, when we watch our children playing in the backyard...when we manage our behaviors and our habits wisely..it is tomorrow that we have in mind...
America doesn't care if there's a tomorrow, what America care's about is that the wealthiest one percent of all human beings on this planet maintain their exclusive entitlement.
I'm through.
I think we've reached a parting of the way here. I'm Canadian because I was born here. If you take the time to read what I've written regarding the Canadian government I think what you'd find is as sharp a criticism for this government as the American government. I stopped being a citizen of Canada a long time ago..and started being a citizen of the world. It is the world that stands to lose in the upward spiral of conflict and destruction and it is in my opinion the United States of America that owns the lions share of pushing the limits on how long other nations will succumb to American lies and beligerance.
Even it you're "right" even if you're "king-o-the-hill" in a "moral" sense, the practices of both the market-economy as directed by the United States and the on-going militarism that's uniquely American in scope and effect....we're all dead....
It's kinda like art that way Bear...you might not have a discrete definition that will please everyone and have unanimity in what "art" really is.... but when our hearts rise at the glory of a sunrise or a sunset, when we watch our children playing in the backyard...when we manage our behaviors and our habits wisely..it is tomorrow that we have in mind...
America doesn't care if there's a tomorrow, what America care's about is that the wealthiest one percent of all human beings on this planet maintain their exclusive entitlement.
I'm through.
The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany have been eliminated, niether represents a threat to the planet of today, we must judge the present empire with the same criteria used to isolate and eliminate those of the past. The American Empire represents a clear and present danger over and above any other potential or extant peril. We must deal with the present and forge the future with the available criteria
of past wrongs gained with the lives of many millions of victims. The stupidity of imperialism is not a matter of debate but very much a forgone conclusion. The fact of American Imperialism is not open for debate even by the ruling class of the USA who have freely addmitted thier belief in and intent of global dominion.
of past wrongs gained with the lives of many millions of victims. The stupidity of imperialism is not a matter of debate but very much a forgone conclusion. The fact of American Imperialism is not open for debate even by the ruling class of the USA who have freely addmitted thier belief in and intent of global dominion.