PDA

View Full Version : Whudasay we go back to the Constitution and demand the Congress declare war?



ishmael
04-28-2007, 08:16 AM
I sense an opening at the moment to lobby for stricter construction. Let's see: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq one and two, Afganistan. One could make the argument that all these wars were unconstitutional. The Congress holds this grave power, yet it's been delegated to a series of presidents out of a sense of emergency, or a lack of courage. I don't see it's made a good show of matters.

Perhaps an executive needs a bit of latitude. But 150 thousand troops in Iraq without a congressional letter isn't mere latitude.

Quaint? A formal declaration of war? Without it we end up in these endless and debilitating debates. That's why those wise men wrote it in.

stevebaby
04-28-2007, 08:48 AM
I've always found it curious that, while Americans loudly proclaim their freedom, they give so much power to one person, the President.
Prime Ministers, under the Westminster system of government, have nowhere near the same power as the US President. The power resides with the parliamentary members, the representatives of the people.
A Prime Minister can be removed from office by members of his own party and if enough members of his own party cross the floor to vote with the Opposition they can remove the government of the day.

We call this system "Democracy".

ishmael
04-28-2007, 09:15 AM
The power to take the country to war was not intended to be in the hands of the executive. It's the power of the congress, a people's body. How it's transformed into the current state is one for the historians, but I think we need to take it back.

Not because this war might well have been a terrible mistake. Because I think those wise men who constructed this document knew a thing or two about power. The momentous decision to go to war ought to be housed with the people's body. Otherwise we get this endless bickering which is idiotcally weakening, and ultimately destructive to everyone.

George.
04-28-2007, 09:16 AM
They wanted a monarchy, you know.

stevebaby
04-28-2007, 09:22 AM
They wanted to make Washington King, but he refused. Is that correct?

Well, now they've got a President who has more power than George the Third had.
Odd that.

S.V. Airlie
04-28-2007, 09:23 AM
I don't recall King as being one of the options but there were a lot of titles bounced around. President was not at the top of the list originally.

LeeG
04-28-2007, 09:24 AM
does the Constitution have a place for the military industrial complex?

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-28-2007, 10:24 AM
I've always found it curious that, while Americans loudly proclaim their freedom, they give so much power to one person, the President.
Prime Ministers, under the Westminster system of government, have nowhere near the same power as the US President. The power resides with the parliamentary members, the representatives of the people.
A Prime Minister can be removed from office by members of his own party and if enough members of his own party cross the floor to vote with the Opposition they can remove the government of the day.

We call this system "Democracy".

Parlimentary government is no more democratic than the US's three branch republic.
The US system was designed by men who were familiar with the British parlimentary system in the extreme. They knew it's flaws. They didn't want a duplicate of it. The names of these men are esconced in world history because the making of the United States was a world-shaking event.
Most of the former Iron-Curtain countries chose the parlimentary system for their new governments and most of those governments have lurched from left to right and back again and from crisis to crisis. Parliments don't work well when the electorate is fractured into too many parties. Parlimentary governments have enormous opportunities to fill their own pockets and the uncertainty of a parlimentary majority, especially with a coallition, is a dandy reason to fill one's pockets now rather than later.
The US system is no better or worse than the European parlimentary model. What it is is slower moving and less efficient at arriving at decisions. Our framers wanted it that way.
In a while George Bush will be disgorged from his seat of power without resort to political fisticuffs. And the ship of state will be put on an even keel again.

SamSam
04-28-2007, 11:04 AM
They wanted a monarchy, you know.

I think we're headed towards a McTatership.

Tylerdurden
04-28-2007, 01:03 PM
The Key to ending war is abolishing the Federal Reserve and putting the coinage of money back into congresses hands,.
Once back on the gold standard It would take the people not some A-hole to go to war. Sacrifices would have to be made and you know how hard it would be to get average Americans to do that.

Of course thats a simple solution so it couldn't possibly work right?

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-28-2007, 05:11 PM
The Key to ending war is abolishing the Federal Reserve and putting the coinage of money back into congresses hands,.


Does al Qaeda know about this?

Woxbox
04-28-2007, 05:27 PM
A Prime Minister can be removed from office by members of his own party and if enough members of his own party cross the floor to vote with the Opposition they can remove the government of the day.



To me, this is the biggest flaw in the US system -- the US president/king/emporer knows that he's pretty much guarnateed 4 more years no matter what he does. If the congress had the option of a no-confidence vote followed by a quick election, it would make any president think twice before starting a war.

Tylerdurden
04-29-2007, 06:42 AM
Does al Qaeda know about this?

I am sure the CIA told them not to worry about it. No one has tried to do it since JFK and you see what that got him.

ishmael
04-29-2007, 07:17 AM
Someone explain to me why gold and silver are less a fiat currency than paper?

I know they are commodities that have a certain inherent value on the market, but is that really what we are talking of in this regard? Seems to me any currency is a matter of faith. But, I came close to failing economics, so please try to explain.

Tylerdurden
04-29-2007, 11:14 AM
Someone explain to me why gold and silver are less a fiat currency than paper?

I know they are commodities that have a certain inherent value on the market, but is that really what we are talking of in this regard? Seems to me any currency is a matter of faith. But, I came close to failing economics, so please try to explain.

Its real money not based on promises that cannot be kept.The Fed deals in Fiat currency..............
"In a fiat money system, money is not backed by a physical commodity (i.e.: gold). Instead, the only thing that gives the money value is its relative scarcity and the faith placed in it by the people that use it. A good primer on the history of fiat money in the US can be found in a video provided by the Mises.org (http://www.kwaves.com/mises.htm) website."
http://www.kwaves.com/fiat.htm

The Fed loans to the 12 fed banks at a rate of 10:1 (something like that) 10 dollars for every one on deposit. Then the 12 Fed branches do the same. then the member banks do the same. and so on and so on. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the danger in this. Of course the well off and parties getting benefit's from this "welfare for the elite" system will complicate and obfuscate their explanations of this system till the end of time.
The money system doesn't work for "The People". It works for just the right people. Going back to coinage in gold and silver and demanding that banks only loan what they hold would put everyman on an equal footing in this game of capitalism.
It may be slower in terms of growth but we all know slow and steady wins the race. Right now we are on a rocket sled to hell.

Larry P.
04-29-2007, 11:27 AM
BS alert

Tylerdurden
04-29-2007, 01:51 PM
BS alert

Tell me what I said that isn't fact? Reality is BS now?

Tylerdurden
04-29-2007, 01:59 PM
Ish, by the way I have a little more BS for ya.

"Instead, the only thing that gives the money value is its relative scarcity and the faith placed in it by the people that use it"

The fed reports M3 which is the relative scarcity of the fiat currency we use (US dollars). M3 has been skyrocketing since Y2K courtesy of the plunge protection team. Last year the fed decided for the first time since the beginning of the Fed to not report M3. So how do you think the relative scarcity thing is going?
Doesn't do a hell of lot for "the full faith and credit of the United States".
Don't worry, its just BS to us little people though.

Osborne Russell
04-29-2007, 02:00 PM
I don't recall King as being one of the options but there were a lot of titles bounced around. President was not at the top of the list originally.

There was a strong segment demanding a King and they didn't mean as a title. What else would you expect -- five or six proposals each for a kind of government that no one had any experience with?

Good thing it was all in the hands of liberal lawyers. The rabble still dreams of a kindly patriarch who relieves them of their responsibilities so they can fill their bellies and chase after novelties.

Osborne Russell
04-29-2007, 02:07 PM
To me, this is the biggest flaw in the US system -- the US president/king/emporer knows that he's pretty much guarnateed 4 more years no matter what he does. If the congress had the option of a no-confidence vote followed by a quick election, it would make any president think twice before starting a war.

Excellent point. The key word is "quick."

The functional equivalent of a no-confidence vote is supposed to be a no-money vote, thus balancing the powers of the executive and the leglislature. It doesn't work because it forces the legislature to cut off the money after the President, however stupidly, has committed the nation to war. Only the very stupidest move by the President will cause a quick no-money vote. Medium-stupid moves won't be challenged until so much time goes by that cutting the money may well be worse than staying the course, because of what has happened in the meantime.

Larry P.
04-29-2007, 03:36 PM
Tell me what I said that isn't fact? Reality is BS now?

Most of what you have said, and your reality is BS. There is no point discussing it with you because you choose to believe in fantasy.

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-29-2007, 06:08 PM
Tell me what I said that isn't fact? Reality is BS now?

Who knows what you said? It's all pretty opaque.
You have suddenly coupled a conversation about the ins and outs of declaring war to that ancient right-wing diatribe about the evils of the Federal Rerserve System and the need to get us back on the gold standard.
You one of them old timey John Birchers? I thought all those suckers went home to the Lord about the end of the Nixon administration.
Our present problem (the war) could have been prevented if one half of US voters had had an IQ above 6. Karl Rove knew how to suck up to folks with a head full of jelly.
Once the White House has been rid of the-gang-that-couldn't-shoot-straight God will be in his heaven again.

Nick C
04-29-2007, 11:21 PM
These gold standard John Birch types, just need something to harp on. You won't see them saying how much greater people had it when we were on the gold standard, because the average guy, didn't have very good.

As for the president arguement, hey, what are you going to do, leave war declaring to Congress and it'll be over before we get ready.

No, the president issue is like the immigration issue. There is enough evidence and criminal stuff to impeach Bush now. You just can't get congress to move on it.

It's like the time I was going to a bargaining session for the union, I was warned that if a certain union guy left a room and said he was going out the door and going to the right, don't believe him. We were on the same side but you still couldn't trust him.

Tylerdurden
04-30-2007, 04:28 AM
Good argument guys, Right wing? John Bircher?
That will slow things down for sure.