| Author |
 Topic  |
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/04/2011 : 02:36:23 AM
|
You can't fool me! First, Eisenhower did beat Taft, but it was a fairly close contes, with the nast majority of delegates chosen by party machine bosses in both parties. Similarly, the victory of Nixon over Reagan in 1968 was razor-thin, and completely due to Strom Thurmond holding 20 wavering Dixie delegates from bolting from Nixon to Reagan. In the years since then, too many delegates are elected as legally "committeed" in primaries, and have no flexibility on the first ballots. There is now no "wiggle room," as I found out when I ran for Alt. Del in 1980.
"Scripting" of candidates came when democratic mechanisms were enforced on party nominations. Only about one tenth of the 1952 delegates of either party came from priaries, most were elected by state conventions that party bosses controlled. Primaries started in only a few states for local and state offices around World War I. Presidential primaries developed to became important in the 1960s. Both developments are based on the general 20th Century upgrading of education levels. for the new requirements of popular rule. in 1952, New Hampshire was the only modern presidential primary in the 48 states.
Warmskin's current quote relates to the American spirit as preferring a small military.
I totally agree. It is amazing, looking at the current force levels, how tiny and puny today's shrunken preparedness has become, given the challenges we face as a democratic society. It was 10.55% of GNP in 1962, and is now reduced to about 4.4%. I hope we can continue to skate by with this level of comparative neglect.
|
Edited by - balataf on 05/04/2011 02:44:37 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
 |
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 05/05/2011 : 02:40:07 AM
|
Ike's candidacy seemed inevitable, as his overwhelming star status was what many thought to be unbeatable, considering 20 years of Democrat rule in the White House, although there was a GOP majority in the Congress, if I remember correctly. Younger Republicans can only imagine what it would be like to have 20 years of Clinton and Obama, to realize what 1952 was like.
From what my parents told me, Republicans were very hungry, in general, to once again have their own kind in the White House. Ike had what it took, and the party went that way. I have always admired Taft, and wondered what it would be like if he were elected. The GOP could use his principles right about now, but I won't hold my breath.
Goldwater's candidacy seemed like a suicide mission, but it was hardly that. He broke up the solid South's penchant for voting against the GOP. For the first time, it felt okay for them to step into the ballot booth and vote GOP. It made sense, since Goldwater became the new Jefferson, so to speak, with his emphasis on personal freedoms, states' rights, and small government. Hard for a southerner to pass up!
The GOP has benefitted ever since.
Statistics can be seen from many viewpoints. The budget has exploded over the years in the welfare and regulation area. More so than the military. It is from this that the military spending appears to be shrinking, percentage wise, and it is, but only because of nearly uncontrollable social spending, none of which is constitutional.
Military spending has been growing, yet percentages try to tell one otherwise. True, we don't have the manpower of the Vietnam War era, but then we don't have a superpower right now that is bent on destroying us physically, if you discount that whacko in North Korea.
It is interesting that the less one meddles in the affairs of others, the lower the need for the military.
The reason I brought up Ike and Reagan is that the GOP does not have their likes in this coming primary season. Palin is a joke, Trump is not a serious candidate, there are some dark horses, and there are some folks that will be recycled from 2008's primaries.
If I were forced to bet on the nominee for 2012, I would think Romney, but with some hesitation. He's a moderate, or a bit liberal (after all, he was liked in Massachusetts). There is Huckabee, socially more conservative. Then there is Ron Paul, the traditional Republican, whose truth makes many Republicans squirm in their seats. No one likes someone who challenges the status quo, especially when the people have been ushered into an age of foreign interventionism without critically thinking about it. That is quite a bit like the old Apple Computer commercial where the one thinking person smashed the big screen that everyone else was watching.
The real roots for good Republicanism is small gov't, small business, no welfare (but with plenty of charity), abstinence from foreign interventionism, letting people be themselves as long as they don't steal from or hurt other people. All those principles are consistent, and the public, once they think about it, might want a good deal of that combination. It's the only one that will save our nation from internal destruction.
Jefferson and Hamilton died a a long time ago, but their feud is alive and well, and lives on as if this were 1789. We are still fighting to see if we are one or the other.
Below is a quote by someone else.
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force."
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/05/2011 : 4:59:28 PM
|
First Error:
The budget has exploded over the years in the welfare and regulation area. More so than the military. It is from this that the military spending appears to be shrinking, percentage wise, and it is, but only because of nearly uncontrollable social spending, none of which is constitutional.
/////////////////////////
You misread my post. I did not reference levels of government spending, Ireferenced military as a percent of Gross National Product, that is of all the economy. Compared to other government spending it has shrunk even more.
Second Error:
the less one meddles in the affairs of others, the lower the need for the military.
///////////////////////////////////
We weren't medd;ing with anyone at the time of Pearl Harbor.
The essential problem is the need to have equipment "in the pipeline" for whatever problems may come up in 20 to 30 years, This is when the development time runs 20 years on sophisticated systems.
I find it interesting that you say you dislike Neocons, yet like Reagan, who had the most Neocon-dominated administration. It is one of the many incredible self-contradictions in your posts.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
rahel
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/05/2011 : 9:44:20 PM
|
ha ha... always to the point. Balataf
rahel
|
|
Country: Canada
| Posts: 93 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/06/2011 : 03:51:42 AM
|
Military spending for 2001 was $346 billion. Military spending for 2012 (projected) is $644 billion. So, you're quite incorrect. I got this from Heritage.org. There is no justification for that kind of spending. Naturally, it was thrust upon us by the mostly pro-Israeli pressure via Kristol, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Wurmser, and their ilk.
In theory, if we jettisoned Israel as an "ally," which it never has been in practice, our military budget could be slashed. Since they and their "American" jingoist buddies have gotten us into all these wars, quite naturally we would not have to spend so much. Joseph Stiglitz (sp?), Nobel Laureate, in his new book has stated that the Israeli-sponsored war in Iraq has cost Americans $3 trillion dollars, if you factor in every conceivable cost of that useless and tragic war.
The war in Iraq did not benefit America, but it sure benefitted Israel, and several thousand Americans died in that nonsensical war. That is why Israel had a hand in conjuring up this whole war plan. Not only did the neocons plan this in the 1990s, but Israeli leader Sharon went through the plans, too. The neocons stated that they would need a Pearl Harbor to convince the American people to engage in this war against Iraq. Voila, 9-11 came along, and up went the costs, dramatically, in funding the wars.
The Western Countries led by the US had imposed crippling sanctions on Japan because of its invasion of China. This hampered the Japanese military operations. Japan entered into diplomatic negotiations with US to break the impase. They used this time to launch an attack on Pearl Harbor.
Japan's feelings translated into the USA leading an international movement to isolate Japan economically and thus force them to withdraw from China. Primarily the USA plan was to cut off credit to the Japanese which would prevent them from being able to purchase petroleum. Japan received petroleum (an absolutely vital economic and military commodity, then as it is now) from three sources: The USA, Dutch east indies (Indonesia) and Burma (British controlled in the 1940's). The USA inspired movement included all three sources.
There is no question that FDR was a war hawk, just as the neocons are today. History shows that he wanted badly to enter the European war theater, but was not supported by the American people. America had no dog in that fight. Pearl Harbor was his ticket into the overall war.
If you meddle, you run the risk of blowback, and that is agreed to by the CIA, based on their statements. If I want to poke my finger into a hornet's nest, I should not complain when one of the offended hornet stings me. We have been meddling in the Mideast for a long time. An organized group of Mideasterners struck back. It seems to be that the USA has no divine right to intervene in the affairs of other countries, unless they have first attacked us. The only country in that region who has attacked us, by means of a formal nation's military hardware, and their nation's actual armed forces, is Israel.
http://www.ussliberty.org
Reagan did have neocons, but if you remember, the racial supremacist, Elliot Abrams, tarnished the Reagan administration with his operations. Richard Perle was another neocon. However, there were also a lot of reasonable men in his administration, too. All of Reagan's military operations were tactical, and not of a larger strategic nature. You remember, he pulled out of Lebanon in October 1983, when he saw the instability of that region. If his overall administration were a neocon as you hint at, he would have found any excuse to launch a major war. He didn't, much to his credit. I'd love to have an administration which had absolutely no neocons. It would save a lot of American lives, foster friendships abroad, slash military spending, and it would respresent traditional GOP values.
Much discussion has been made about Israel's knowing about this attack through their intelligence, but they did not warn the USA about it. One can easily wonder if that did lead to the attack on our troops, in hopes that we would have been drawn into a war. Wars need good causes. I'll have to look into that more intensely. My mind has dwelt eslewhere since those days, but I have strong memories of reading about Israel's foreknowledge of the attack. I need to back that up with sources to satisfy my own curiosity. If I find none, then, of course, I will retract that particular statement.
The Founding Fathers had it right; don't have allies, or get mixed up in the affairs of other countries. Funny how many Americans think these brilliant people should be ignored today. Well, we have been ignoring them, and look at the mess we are into today.
Interesting to hear from you once more, Rahel, but there is nothing worthy of comment in your last statement, unless I wanted to state something about your rah-rah, pom-pom waving statements. Just can't think of anything in that same sphere of intellect. The main thing is that you're having fun and are enjoying the discussion. Glad you're here again!! 
Below is a quote by someone else.
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force."
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
sailawaybob
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/06/2011 : 11:20:12 PM
|
did anyone watch the rep. debate thursday night, there was some pretty good candidates on stage, i still like herman cain but i don't think he has the backing $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ that he needs to go up against obama and his$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ but i don't know who does but would love to see them debate.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1268 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/07/2011 : 02:35:23 AM
|
Hi Bob,
I watched it on youtube. I don't bother with TV, so I go cheap and use youtube.  Pawlenty and Cain spoke well when it came to economics. My favorite of the bunch was Paul. I'd take Cain over McCain anyday! My least favorite of that bunch was Santorum. But, hey, that is one little guy's opinion.
The link for the debate is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Jjp_QvCLc
I must sent youtube a thank you note for making this available for freeloaders like me. No commercials either. What more could you ask for, other than the candidates should have been nude on the stage.
I noticed that FOX did not exclude Ron Paul this time. I guess they learned their lesson from the 2008 primaries.
The stage looked a little funny, as if they were all standing next to a pool of water. I think I saw little Chris Wallace fishing in it.
It will be interesting to see the Democratic debates, as Obama debates himself. He'll lose that one.
If you want Ron Paul responses only, here is the link for that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMmVwW8h4Ho
Below is a quote by someone else.
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force."
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
sailawaybob
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/07/2011 : 10:49:25 PM
|
warmskin i like ron paul libertarian views i think there was only a few things he didn't impress me on but i would take any of them over obama, i still like cain the best but he has no washington experience which is good but can be bad as those career crook could try to swallow him up with his inexperience. i sure a lot more will jump into the race so i will keep a open mind.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1268 |
|
|
|
jbsnc
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/08/2011 : 11:01:33 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sailawaybob
warmskin i like ron paul libertarian views i think there was only a few things he didn't impress me on but i would take any of them over obama, i still like cain the best but he has no washington experience which is good but can be bad as those career crook could try to swallow him up with his inexperience. i sure a lot more will jump into the race so i will keep a open mind.
According to radio talk show host Neal Boortz, a long time friend, Cain has saved more than one business firm from going under using aggressive leadership. Cain once was a board member of a Federal Reserve Bank. The Beltway Bandits can be very difficult to deal with but I think Herman is one who can. I would love to see Sarah Palin in action against the bandits.
Happy Nuding.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 153 |
|
|
|
sailawaybob
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/09/2011 : 01:55:02 AM
|
jbsnc i like sarah palin she has gut like ronald reagan but the left and the media have smeared her what i don't understand is why women dislike her so much, i think they would be standing behind her on the right and the left but they don't seem to. as for herman cain he is my choice right now because he supports evrything i support, the other day he was preaching my tune.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1268 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/09/2011 : 03:03:05 AM
|
This case raises a number of Constitutional questions, as to whether a President should be bound by laws passed by Congress. and how much the Obama Administration should be able to enforce a fantasy against the facts "on the ground." Long standing previous American history and tradition definitely favor the Zivotofskys over this executive power grab.
The Z's obviously are also loyal Americans or they would not go to this trouble, but simply take up Israeli citizenship. Interesting case, and I'll be curious to see the result.
Washington Post By Robert Barnes, Published: May 8
Young Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, an 8-year-old American born in Jerusalem, likes to brag to his older siblings that he is the only one of them born in Israel.
He and his parents would like the U.S. government to agree.
But the Zivotofskys’ request to change Menachem’s passport to say his birthplace is “Israel” rather than simply “Jerusalem” has met firm resistance from the State Department.
“The status of Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive and long-standing disputes in the Arab-Israeli conflict,” the government said in its brief to the court. It is not one in which the United States has been willing to choose sides.
Over the objection of the Obama administration, the Supreme Court last week agreed to review the long-running dispute over Menachem’s passport. The slim petition filed by veteran Supreme Court practitioner Nathan Lewin manages to pack in a trove of constitutional questions for argument next fall.
It raises a broad separation of powers question about Congress’ power to influence the nation’s foreign policy. It broaches the question of when courts may get involved in settling such disputes between the legislative and executive branches. And it even touches on the unsettled question of presidential “signing statements,” in which the president signs a bill while declaring he will ignore parts he considers unconstitutional.
U.S. recognition of Jerusalem is a perennial question for American politicians, but one that American diplomats consider best left for negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian officials. Israel has had control of the once-divided city since the 1967 war, and considers it the capital; the United States maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv.
In 2002, Congress passed a provision in a broader foreign relations act that said Americans born in Jerusalem could request that official documents recognize their birthplace as “Israel.”
President George W. Bush signed the law, but said in a signing statement that U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem had not changed. The provision, he said, would “impermissibly interfere with the president’s constitutional authority to formulate the position of the United States, speak for the nation in international affairs and determine the terms on which recognition is given to foreign states.”
Not long after, Ari and Naomi Zivotofsky, Americans who moved to Israel in 2000, had a baby boy in a hospital in West Jerusalem. Naomi Zivotofsky’s request that her son’s Consular Report of Birth Abroad and his passport list the country of his birth as Israel were denied.
The Zivotofskys sued, but a district judge in Washington dismissed the case, saying it “raises a quintessential political question which is not justiciable by the courts.”
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed. But Senior Judge Harry T. Edwards disagreed, saying the court should have moved on to hear the merits of the arguments. The case, he said, “raises an extraordinarily important question” that “calls into question the role of a federal court in our system of justice.”
(Edwards’ bottom line, though, is of little help to the family: he concluded that while the court should have considered the case, he would have found the 2002 congressional language unconstitutional because it “impermissibly intrudes on the president’s exclusive power to recognize foreign sovereigns.”)
Lewin is encouraged that the Supreme Court asked for a briefing on both questions — whether the courts should hear the case and whether Congress’ actions were unconstitutional.
He believes the D.C. Circuit Court got it wrong. He said the Zivotofskys are not asking the courts to decide a matter of foreign policy, but simply to enforce a law that Congress has passed and the president has signed.
The circuit court’s refusal to even hear the merits of the suit is an “abdication of the court’s duty to determine the lawfulness of governmental conduct that affects the rights of individual citizens,” Lewin said in his brief.
Ari Zivotofsky, a neuroscience researcher at an Israeli university, said he and his wife were aware they were testing the law with their request, “but I can’t say I expected it would end up at the Supreme Court.”
But he said it is important “really for the same reason we moved here — to live in the state of Israel.” He added: “Jews for thousands of years prayed daily to be able to go to Jerusalem.”
The case is M.B.Z. v. Clinton and will be heard in the court’s next term.
/////////////////
Warmskin, you are comparing 2001 to 2012 as a percent of government spending. I was comparing 2011 to 1962 as a percent of the total economy. Check the facts! Even with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military is less than half as big as the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
|
Edited by - balataf on 05/09/2011 03:16:00 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/09/2011 : 04:11:26 AM
|
I'm trying to recall if there were a draft back in 1962. If so, the armed forces were bigger than they had to be. I would need much more info.
All I can say is that the GOP increased military spending about twofold, and of that, a useless war that had nothing to do with 9-11, and everything to do with the neocons, and the PNAC outfit who tried to get Clinton to wage the war in his day.
The cost of that war, as a sum of all the facets of it, in the past, in the present, and into the future is $3 trillion. If the GOP is supposed to be about saving money, where were their hearts and heads on that one? I could think of places they were, but am too polite to say so here.
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/09/2011 : 2:00:34 PM
|
Not only was there a draft in '62, but there were reserves still cslled up and active from the Berlin Crisis that ended in ;ate Nov. 1961, and then a massive callup for the Cuban Missile Crisis. In very rough figures, the Navy was about three times the current size, the Air Force about double now, and the Army about 2 1/2 times, Marines were about 1 3/4 the current.
1962 was the peak year after WW2. Today's military is very much smaller tho much more efficient. Much was redirected in later years to Viet Nam, but that was when the immediate series of Soviet confrontations had passed. 1968 was not that much less than 1962, but still significantly smaller.
I spent those years intensely studying defense and foreign policy, and got twin majors in college of Foreign Policy and European History, for whatever that might be worth now.
The cost of anything, including any war, has to be judged by the relative costs of NOT having the war. That is why Jefferson had the undeclared war in Tripoli, which had many equivalents to uprooting the Taliban. I think we got off cheap compared to what it might have cost in not fighting there. There is room for different calculations and other opinions.
But America has never had a militarist policy, and the percentage of generals and admirals as governors, senators and cabinet remains at a historic low level, when compared to our entire record up to the 1960s.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/10/2011 : 02:55:31 AM
|
Now I do remember an older friend friend of mine was drafted back then, as was Ron Paul around that time, during the Cuban missile crisis. Thanks for the confirmation.
At that time, we were spending about 50 billion on defense, partly because of the USSR, I would think. Fortunately, it was spending on being prepared, and not on kinesthetic war.
That was before we went all the way with LBJ and massively increased spending across the board.
The record is quite moldable as of late, depending on how one wants to look at the budget. The current wars are funded by 1) printing money, or the FED buying US debt instruments, and 2) borrowing money from foreign countries. Naturally, this does not show up as taxation expenses, right away, to the American people. These costs will come later on, in terms of inflation, and more interest payments on the federal debt. The next generation will feel the weight of spending, and not so much us, except for variations in inflation as new money makes its way through the marketplace.
The activities of DoD, have risen sharply over the last decade or so, and the American people cannot spend that. As I said in an earlier post, the DoD budget nearly doubled since Bush began office. Also, the Pentagon lost $2.3 trillion under Rumsfeld. That has to be paid for by somebody. That is not very conservative of him. The GOP used to accuse Democrats of wasting that kind of money on boondoggles.
Here is a graphic site showing the present and past cost of the wars to date. This does not take into account the major future costs to the future generations, like the toddlers we see today.
http://costofwar.com/en/
As to whether we are an aggressive military nation, I'd rather the world judge us. As you probably know, I imagine, Robert Burns' saying -- the gift to see ourselves as others see us. I would fully expect that the world sees us as the aggressor as of late. I believe they are correct. Shock and awe impressed some Americans, because it was that - an enormous and intensive display of warfare, but many Americans and most foreigners saw it as naked aggression against a country that did not harm us. It was made possible by folks in the PNAC group, and others like them.
Paul O'Neill, Bush's first Sec. of the Treasury, was miffed over the early Bush cabinet meetings, in that they talked a lot about invading Iraq. This was in the late winter and spring of 2001. Some might rightly say that was odd. Why then? Look no further than Rummy's undersecretaries of DoD.
The average, innocent Iraqi would say that we are a militaristic nation, as would many other people from most other countries. They no doubt understood us bombing terrorist infested areas of Afghanistan, but Iraq, whose leader was at odds with Osama? Illogical.
I would absolutely agree with you in that we have been a peace-loving nation, but where we disagree is that the USA is a warlike nation for the last decade. We all, (or some of us) can recall after WWI, that in 1920, Warren Harding ran on the idea of "normalcy," meaning the rejection of Woodrow Wilson's large scale interventionism. The American people finally rejected Wilsonianism and showed their strong preference to not go to war. They were that way just before Pearl Harbor, too. Of course, back then, Congress actually declared war in those days, unlike today.
Further, there was no formal declaration of war in the last few decades by Congress, only an expression of sorts. Madison labored eloquently to make sure that presidents could not make war, because of the evils of kings making war on their own. Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and probably Iran next, all had no formal declarations of war. Since it is the fad these days to ignore the US Constitution these days on the part of Democrats and Republicans, we have lost our way as to live as true Americans.
The world used to see us as the last, best hope. Now it sees us as a war-like nation. I can't help but feel sad about that realization. It's a bit like someone who is about to make an appearance before a TV camera with some spinach stuck between his/her front teeth. Assume the guy/gal is very prideful about their appearance. Who is going to tell them about their predicament?
Same with the USA. Who is going to tell us that we have war stuck between our analogous teeth? Can we listen? Are we too sure of ourselves, and are we too prideful? I would say so.
We have become the "ugly American" without tourists having to leave home. It used to be that we sometimes were rude pests to foreigners overseas, while on our vacation. Now we do that same thing with our military, and we can watch it on our TV sets on the nightly news. Well, at least the tourists didn't have to go through Michael Chertoff's profitable x-ray, see-through machines to go overseas. Haha.
Dropping bombs on people has not endeared us to others, and it is immoral to drop bombs on a nation without a clear and rightful purpose, but rather solely based on the goal of persons who do not care for what America is about.
Paul O'Neill, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul were all correct about the Iraqi War. It was an obsession with Bush's guys well before 911. However, it is proven that Bush's guys came into office already wanting to wage war against Iraq. As a result, over 4 million Iraqis are homeless.
I don't mind at all such things as purely tactical objectives that take a few days and are an emergency. But, a protracted war, of large magnitude, where thousands of American will die, needs the formal declaration of war. I was quite fine with Reagan's tactics in Grenada, and the action was quick and to the point. Had that action gone on for much longer, I would say we would have needed a declaration of war. I might put that in the same category in the area of building permits. If it is a small repair job, you don't need a permit. If it is a large scale project, you do need a permit. Same thing with foreign conflict. If large, get a declaration. If it's quite small in scope, and can be done in a day or two, go for it, as long as it is purely of true American interest, and not advocated by another foreign interest.
One can only wonder what James Madison would say about all this.
So, we agree in part.
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 1:38:09 PM
|
Good points to be made on both sides of this. I could argue it either way. The question is: which view preserves the Constitutional balance best with President vs, Congress?
There is a bill, H.R. 1540 currently proposed to "correct" for having a non-declared war going. There have been about 30 iof them in US history, starting with France in 1797-99, under John Adams. Next came Jefferson's Tripoli Pirates invasion, etc, etc. down to the Libyan action currently.
Speaheaded by various Tea Party sticklers who want to re-assert Congress's role against Presidential power, they want to delare war against AlQaeda, the Taliban, and whichever of their allies pick fights against America. The biggest objection is that we have always only declared war against governments, and that the nebulous nature of the Terrorists' network makes it harder to limit the action. If AlQaeda supporters, such as Hamas and Hezbollah take aqctions, it could drag us into other aspects of the anti-Terrorist struggles.
Constitutionally, should we declare the first official war since WW2? In line with the court case I outlined a few days ago, they are moves to limit the "Imperial" Presidential powers.
These would answer Constitutionalist points made recently above by Warmskin.
|
Edited by - balataf on 05/11/2011 1:55:10 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
General Political Discourse
