McFlip / McFlop - Page 2

Steveaux · 07-03-2008, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otis

Control of the Armed Forces is not a congressional power.

The Constitution's division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act. Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important--in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress.

Basically what I get out of this is Congress now controlled by Democrats can't even agree and stand together against the least popular president this country has had since Nixon was in office.

Only one guy Kucinich has been willing to introduce a motion for Impeachment and unlike Clinton and the cigar, I'm pretty sure you could make a decent case out of W.

Do I think Obama is going to be any different. No not really. But at least he will be able to stack a liberal judge or 2 on the high court so I suppose that will help with some judicial rights they've been trying to erode.

Faabio · 07-03-2008, 04:04 PM

These thread makes me want McNuggets

Otis · 07-03-2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illuminator

So... if Congress can declare war, can it also un-declare it?

Irrelevant.

Oizen · 07-03-2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deson

I assume that's a joke but his sig does actually have a link with a host of them. If you ignore the obvious bigoted shots, there is some very good info in that link.

Oh, thanks Otis! I knew you wouldn't let me down.

Thanks for the heads up, D. Webbing some links now actually and since you couldn't see the smile on my face: Yes it was a joke to bring emphasis to Lumi's joke just in case someone missed the ":" at the end of his sentence.

I was chuckling and feared we might have viewers that missed the brilliance of his post. It can honestly be considered a
/inets thumbs up, Lumi

Daedalus · 07-03-2008, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otis

Control of the Armed Forces is not a congressional power.

Ever try to fight a war without any resources?

Dangit, beat by Steve

Deson · 07-03-2008, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steveaux

The Constitution's division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act. Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important--in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress.

Basically what I get out of this is Congress now controlled by Democrats can't even agree and stand together against the least popular president this country has had since Nixon was in office.

Only one guy Kucinich has been willing to introduce a motion for Impeachment and unlike Clinton and the cigar, I'm pretty sure you could make a decent case out of W.

Do I think Obama is going to be any different. No not really. But at least he will be able to stack a liberal judge or 2 on the high court so I suppose that will help with some judicial rights they've been trying to erode.

The Dem's can't get anything through congress because they don't actually control it. They do not have either a filibuster proof nor a veto proof majority and the Republicans are doing a very damned good job of grinding the place to a halt. Couple that with some Dem's actually believing in sticking it out and nothing is going to happen on Iraq until Obama takes the oath. Now, given that Obama is a lying sack, don't expect him to get the U.S. out of Iraq during his first term. He'll say some B.S. about situations on the ground, effectively contradicting his every complaint about the current situation and again leaving the U.S. with and open ended commitment and likely a weak pursual of the war since he hasn't thought about that much. After all, Obama is the guy who just wants to inspire and enable, his staff can do the rest of the work...wait,that sounds awful familiar...

As far as the court goes, it will take an act of God to not let the Dems increase control the congress this year. Even with McCain, the worst you're going to get is another Stevens or the wild card of a Reaganesque appointee. Out of the Reagan appointments,a Scalia type, as much as I like him, is almost certain to be rejected by said congress. Ideologues on both ends of the spectrum are terrible and the last thing we need is another Thomas sitting off on an 8-1 decision writing inanity from his uncompromising idealogical view. The courts will be fine no matter who is elected.