Dear Senator Specter...
It's called the Constitution. Perhaps you should read it sometime.
Particularly who is the "decision maker" with regards to war.
WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate Republican on Tuesday directly challenged President Bush's declaration that "I am the decision-maker" on issues of war.
"I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said during a hearing on Congress' war powers amid an increasingly harsh debate over Iraq war policy. "The decider is a shared and joint responsibility," Specter said.
Well, gee, the Constitution is fairly clear about this.
Article II, Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Nothing about Congress in there. Nothing about shared power. Not a thing.
I guess Democrats...oops, I mean people like Specter...are confused by their duty to fund the armed forces and declare war.
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
Still no power to wage war. That belongs to the Commander in Chief. That is, the President.
Senator Boxer adds to confusion about Congress' ability to end wars.
"Read the Constitution," Boxer told her colleagues last week. "The Congress has the power to declare war. And on multiple occasions, we used our power to end conflicts."
Traditionally the ending of a war requires a treaty of some sort. That indeed is voted upon by Congress...but only after the President actually negotiates the treaty.
Article II Section 2
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.
I am not surprised that so many people in government are so woefully ignorant of the basic underpinnings of the government. It shows in their behavior and the laws they try to foist upon the populace.
Boxer might even be speaking of the "War Powers Act", yet another piece of unconstitutional legislation passed by Congress a generation ago as one of the things they did to get back at President Nixon (and to make people think Congress had nothing to do with Vietnam).
However, as the Constitution clearly states, their power is limited to funding the military. They cannot order the troops home, they cannot order them to stop fighting, they cannot surrender. As a practical matter they could vote not to fund the troops, which is the same thing as surrendering, but then they would not be able to lay the blame with the President.
Some people get it, but they tend to be outside of Congress (not surprisingly):
"Once Congress raises an army, it's his to command," said Robert Turner, a law professor at the University of Virginia who was to testify Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I hate to think what the troops say when they read this kind of defeatism from the surrenderistas in Congress. I know what posterity will say: "What were they thinking?"
They were thinking being a Senator made them the equal of the President of the United States.
Particularly who is the "decision maker" with regards to war.
WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate Republican on Tuesday directly challenged President Bush's declaration that "I am the decision-maker" on issues of war.
"I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said during a hearing on Congress' war powers amid an increasingly harsh debate over Iraq war policy. "The decider is a shared and joint responsibility," Specter said.
Well, gee, the Constitution is fairly clear about this.
Article II, Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Nothing about Congress in there. Nothing about shared power. Not a thing.
I guess Democrats...oops, I mean people like Specter...are confused by their duty to fund the armed forces and declare war.
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
Still no power to wage war. That belongs to the Commander in Chief. That is, the President.
Senator Boxer adds to confusion about Congress' ability to end wars.
"Read the Constitution," Boxer told her colleagues last week. "The Congress has the power to declare war. And on multiple occasions, we used our power to end conflicts."
Traditionally the ending of a war requires a treaty of some sort. That indeed is voted upon by Congress...but only after the President actually negotiates the treaty.
Article II Section 2
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.
I am not surprised that so many people in government are so woefully ignorant of the basic underpinnings of the government. It shows in their behavior and the laws they try to foist upon the populace.
Boxer might even be speaking of the "War Powers Act", yet another piece of unconstitutional legislation passed by Congress a generation ago as one of the things they did to get back at President Nixon (and to make people think Congress had nothing to do with Vietnam).
However, as the Constitution clearly states, their power is limited to funding the military. They cannot order the troops home, they cannot order them to stop fighting, they cannot surrender. As a practical matter they could vote not to fund the troops, which is the same thing as surrendering, but then they would not be able to lay the blame with the President.
Some people get it, but they tend to be outside of Congress (not surprisingly):
"Once Congress raises an army, it's his to command," said Robert Turner, a law professor at the University of Virginia who was to testify Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I hate to think what the troops say when they read this kind of defeatism from the surrenderistas in Congress. I know what posterity will say: "What were they thinking?"
They were thinking being a Senator made them the equal of the President of the United States.