Feb 23 2007

Democrat’s Need A Lesson On The US Constitution

Published by at 6:57 am under All General Discussions,Iraq

Democrats (and their media puppets) always seem in need of a serious tutorial on the very US Constitution they took an oath to protect. The Senate Dems are tring to play Commander-in-Chief (those silly egoes of theirs!) and direct the use of our forces in Iraq.

Four years ago, Congress passed legislation authorizing President Bush to go to war in Iraq. Now Senate Democrats want to take it back.

Key lawmakers, backed by party leaders, are drafting legislation that would effectively revoke the broad authority granted to the president in the days Saddam Hussein was in power, and leave U.S. troops with a limited mission as they prepare to withdraw.

Officials said Thursday the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled. One version would restrict American troops in Iraq to fighting al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.

Congress has no such power. Time to time an overly excited Congress thinks all they need to do to change the Constitution is pass a Bill the normal way. We all know that is not how it works, and here is what the Constitution says about who directs the military:

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; …

No caveats or conditions or limitations. None. Here are some historical annotations to these clear Consitutional Powers:

n 1850, Chief Justice Taney, for the Court, said: ”His duty and his power are purely military. As commander-in- chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. He may invade the hostile country, and subject it to the sovereignty and authority of the United States. But his conquests do not enlarge the boundaries of this Union, nor extend the operation of our institutions and laws beyond the limits before assigned to them by the legislative power.

The Congress cannot rewrite the Constitution by normal Bills. So this is another wasted, useless, ego-trip by one of the worst Democrat Senates in America’s history.

91 responses so far

91 Responses to “Democrat’s Need A Lesson On The US Constitution”

  1. lurker9876 says:

    Carol Herman, here’s the article for ya!

    America’s Neo-Copperheads

    Talks about how Abraham Lincoln was treated. Same way Bush is treated. Guess Bush must know the history far better than most of us.

    Abraham Lincoln and Bush weren’t the only ones facing such nasty and negative treatment.

  2. Jacqui says:

    Did anyone notice that they had a drill at the White House today to see how they would react if attacked – they called a an IED attack simulation.

    Today Gateway pundit writes that Iranian Bazteb news reported that ten Iranian Revolutionary Guard members were killed when their helicopter was shot down today in northwest Iran: Some sources cited technical problems as the cause of the explosion. But certain terrorist organizations claimed that the helicopter exploded after they targeted it with US made SA-7 rockets.

    hmmm they are bringing in weapons to Iraq’s insurgents to use against our troops – are we sending weapons to their insurgents – is that why they are preparing for an attack at the White House?

    I guess Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears is more important news.

  3. lurker9876 says:

    L.A. Times Won’t Correct Clear Error on “Sixteen Words” Mischaracterization

    Those claiming the 16-words of the SOTU were wrong have been lied to by those writers that they read.

    Hadn’t read about the Iranian helicopter being shot down. Interesting news and thanks!

  4. lassoingtruth says:


    Big MSM piece today on how the CIA recruited the bloodiest
    of Japanese war time spies and leaders to the anti-Soviet post-war cause, realizing they had gargantuan numbers of Chinese
    victims on their hands. Your pro-Empire moralizing, depending on
    especial “Hitler was a unique monster” rationale is US Empire
    fairytale fiction written by the winners. And increasingly inutile
    in contemporary politics, at least as applied to Israeli interests.

  5. lassoingtruth says:


    Oh, Lurker, you won’t find the truth lurking around neocon
    trash. You don’t consider these US Generals who threaten to resign
    if Cheney attacks Iran traitors do you?

  6. lurker9876 says:

    Let them resign. They don’t deserve to operate the military.

    BTW, it won’t be Cheney declaring war on Iran. It’s the commander-in-chief. Cheney is not the commander-in-cheif.

    MSM is big on left-wing writings. I won’t read most of them.

  7. lurker9876 says:

    ‘Commanders’ Will Quit If We Attack Iran?

    Captain Morissey and Jules Crittenden agree!

  8. lurker9876 says:

    Powerline’s comments:

    What’s the Story?

    Appears to be another one of those MSM’s games being played on us.

    “So we have at least three layers of anonymity between us and the story’s headline. Unknown American officers allegedly have told unknown counterparts in British military or intelligence circles that they will resign, and these unidentified persons allegedly passed the word to an anonymous “source with close ties to British intelligence.” There is a word for this sort of fourth-hand information. It’s called a “rumor.”

    Apart from references to other news stories, the Times quotes just one person by name: Hillary Mann, who repeats her oft-stated fear that the Bush administration intends to provoke an armed confrontation with Iran. Mann and her husband are both career bureaucrats who quit their jobs in a huff because the administration wasn’t following their preferred course of negotiating a “grand bargain between the United States and the Islamic Republic.” You can read about their battle against the administration on the Democratic Party’s web site.

    It’s hard to know what to make of a news story that is based on such a combination of anonymous and biased sources, but it is certainly possible that one or more high-level military officers are prepared to resign and go on the lecture circuit should the U.S. launch a strike against Iran. Why not? For a Democrat in the armed forces, it would be a glorious, potentially lucrative way to wind up a career.

    That doesn’t make it right, though. My own guess is that there is little or no chance of our launching any kind of military action against Iran during the next two years. But why tell the Iranians that? Dick Cheney has labored manfully to keep alive the idea that “all options are on the table” with respect to Iran. Consistent with that position, President Bush has sent aircraft carriers to the region. I’ve tried hard to think of a reason why it would be proper for an active duty officer to undercut U.S. foreign policy by leaking assurances to the Iranians that our uniformed services are so bitterly opposed to military action that any such action would be met with resignations. So far, though, I haven’t been able to come up with one.”

  9. lassoingtruth says:

    The Powerline punkdit also hasn’t been able to come up with
    another truth confession which might scare his sheep: Murtha
    speaks for a large segment of active high-stationed military.

  10. lurker9876 says:

    Huh? Murtha has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.