Comments on: Are we at war? http://www.sufferableass.com/2006/01/26/are-we-at-war/ Quietly, lovingly, judging you Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:59:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: The Ass http://www.sufferableass.com/2006/01/26/are-we-at-war/comment-page-1/#comment-5 The Ass Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:17:58 +0000 http://www.sufferableass.com/?p=15#comment-5 I come back to the question of the balance of power. The October 16, 2002 resolution was to use military power against the threat posed by Iraq. That threat never existed, and the threat that exists now has nothing to do with the original intent of the resolution. Why should the President feel he is authorized, then, to conduct a limitless action and claim extraordinary privilege? Congress ought to be clear about their intent; they have a right to a say in the process. If I learned anything from watching Spiderman (the movie), it's that "with great power comes great responsibility." Our president and our congress have a great responsibility to be clear and contemplative when wielding the great power of our country, and to my mind that means declaring a formal war with clear boundaries. I guess I'm really arguing for the way I think things <i>should be</i>, John, though I certainly agree with your description of the way things <i>are</i>. I come back to the question of the balance of power. The October 16, 2002 resolution was to use military power against the threat posed by Iraq. That threat never existed, and the threat that exists now has nothing to do with the original intent of the resolution. Why should the President feel he is authorized, then, to conduct a limitless action and claim extraordinary privilege? Congress ought to be clear about their intent; they have a right to a say in the process.

If I learned anything from watching Spiderman (the movie), it’s that “with great power comes great responsibility.” Our president and our congress have a great responsibility to be clear and contemplative when wielding the great power of our country, and to my mind that means declaring a formal war with clear boundaries.

I guess I’m really arguing for the way I think things should be, John, though I certainly agree with your description of the way things are.

]]> By: john Alberts http://www.sufferableass.com/2006/01/26/are-we-at-war/comment-page-1/#comment-4 john Alberts Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:39:35 +0000 http://www.sufferableass.com/?p=15#comment-4 I have to admit that the pro-war argument is convincing to me. The Constitution gives Congress many powers such as taxation, money supply etc. But it does not define the language that needs to be use. For example, the power to tax. The constitution certainly does not define the language of the tax code. Or what our money looks like. It simply wanted the power of war divided up between the two branches with the power to fund, authorize, and build a military to the Congress and the power to actually wage war and appoint the officers to the President as Commander in Chief. Certainly this has occurred with regard to Afghanistan and Iraq. Everyone in the world knew what those resolutions meant including our courts and political system. One argument against has been that a joint resolution is meaningless legally. But I looked up the World War I "Declaration of War" and it was a joint resolution of Congress and used the words "Authorize the President". Some think that unless it says "Declare War", it's not a war but that makes no constitutional or practical sense. If it looks, quacks and walks like a Duck, It's a Duck. I have to admit that the pro-war argument is convincing to me. The Constitution gives Congress many powers such as taxation, money supply etc. But it does not define the language that needs to be use. For example, the power to tax. The constitution certainly does not define the language of the tax code. Or what our money looks like. It simply wanted the power of war divided up between the two branches with the power to fund, authorize, and build a military to the Congress and the power to actually wage war and appoint the officers to the President as Commander in Chief. Certainly this has occurred with regard to Afghanistan and Iraq. Everyone in the world knew what those resolutions meant including our courts and political system. One argument against has been that a joint resolution is meaningless legally. But I looked up the World War I “Declaration of War” and it was a joint resolution of Congress and used the words “Authorize the President”. Some think that unless it says “Declare War”, it’s not a war but that makes no constitutional or practical sense. If it looks, quacks and walks like a Duck, It’s a Duck.

]]>