The surge is on
Republic
1.
a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
2.
a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
What is the difference between a monarch and a president? That’s a question you have to answer before deciding where the
In a republic, as the supreme power is vested in the people, it would therefore be contrary to the usual model for a president to persist in stifling and ignoring the will of the people and not only failing to protect the constitution but weakening it by fiat.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to call the
In a clip uploaded to the CBS News web site Friday night of a 60 Minutes interview which will air tomorrow, Bush is asked whether he has the right to ignore Congress if it forbids him to escalate troop levels in
"I think I've got, in this situation, I do, yeah. Now I fully understand they will, they could try to stop me from doing it, but, uh, I've made my decision and we're going forward."
Thus proclaims the monarch of
Impeachment
To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.
(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)
posted by Capt. Fogg at
10:02 AM
6 Comments:
You are an hysterical ninny.
This idea that because of the vote last November that somehow the President is usurping the will of the American people is loony.
The President won an election also - an election that constitutionally mandates his term as four years; not two years, not one year, not five years but four years.
The President's approval rating could go to zero and he would still have the Constitutional authority to carry out his policies as the power to prosecute the war in Iraq was granted by vote of both houses of Congress in 2003.
Congress may be the only body to constitutionally be able to declare war - something they did with large majorities. But the constitutionally mandated Commander in Chief determines how it is fought.
Congress did not sign off on the terms of unconditional surrender promulgated by Roosevelt and Churchill at Casablanca in 1943. FDR would have laughed in their faces. Similarly, Bush will determine how and when this war ends, how it is prosecuted, and how best to protect the men and women under his command.
This last has been the traditional power granted a CIC from time immemorial.
Congress, of course, can choose to defund the war. No one is saying they can't do that. But "sense of the Senate" resolutions won't get it done.
And I'd love to see them try initiating a constitutional crisis by challenging the power of the CIC to determine ultimate war aims and war policy - they'd get smacked down by any judge halfway familiar with precedent and the constitution.
By
Rick Moran, at 11:44 AM
Insults, bombastic polemics and other high amplitude buffoonery don't really substitute for a well reasoned argument, nor do appeals to ancient tradition or prior infraction of law, and if that's all you have to support your smug mockery, then mock away, but accusations of hysteria, stupidity and lunacy on my part might be a bit excessive and unconvincing as a substitute.
I disagree strongly that the intent of the constitution is to provide only very loose restrictions on a president as concerns his ability to start and conduct wars. I believe that the opposite intent is a cornerstone of our republic as it was conceived. I also suspect that you confuse the title of commander in chief of the armed forces with commander in chief of the country.
If we are under his command, then we have no republic and that, Mein lieber Herr, is the point I attempted to make in distinguishing a republic from a monarchy and moreover I believe it was a point the writers of our constitution wished to make.
We have a president who has signed bills that were not passed by congress and who makes signing statements absolving himself from any restrictions, checks or balances he wishes to absolve himself from. The erosion of the bill of rights he continues to make are in my opinion constitutional infringements worthy of being discussed formally by those with the constitutional power to try him for it.
If I am a "loony" for doubting a president who declares that the will of the people, the will of anyone at all in fact, will have no influence on the life or death decisions he makes concerning our future, then so be it. It simply defies the concept of a republic to have a leader who feels he speaks only for himself and listens only to his secret voices.
Whatever prerequisites a legitimate military action might require, a nebulous dislike of "evil-doers" is probably not sufficient and if honesty is a requirement for legitimate leadership you must have some other reason to forgive the deliberate deception involved in attacking Iraq instead of pursuing those who attacked the US. Of course I'm presuming intelligence, sanity and honesty on your part - I might of course be wrong.
By
Capt. Fogg, at 2:12 PM
In the interests of adding substantively to this debate, I offer the following observation:
I wondered why the writer used CIC an acronym I had never seen before, instead of CINC, to refer to the commander-in-chief. Then a bit a research uncovered that back in 2002 Donald Rumsfeld banned the use of the term CINC to refer to anyone other than the president. Apparently, "CIC" has therefore entered the vernacular, as a result of yet another enduring contribution of Mr. Rumsfeld to our nation's history.
"Reminding the US Military that America has only one true commander in chief -- President Bush -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has forbidden the long-used acronym of "CINC" (pronounced "sink") when referring to for military officers." --October, 2002.
By
Anonymous, at 7:49 PM
That there are people who are quite comfortable - even quite proud, to think of the president as the supreme leader to whom all owe obedience, is frightening.
I'm quite aware that the President has the power to do what he is doing, but by insisting that he is not answerable to anyone for his actions is directly contrary to the entire idea of a Republic. The idea that he is not answerable to the people for his deception is not an idea that has anything to do with our theory of government. Allowing the president war powers can only be justified if the president can be trusted and he can only be trusted if he can be called to task for his his abuse of the public trust.
Without the ability to resort to impeachment, we have a monarchy.
By
Capt. Fogg, at 10:10 PM
I continue to think we have no time for impeachment. I'm convinced Bush has lost his grip on reality altogether.
My current thinking is the most expedient method to end this madness is to simply revoke the resolution that allegedly gave him all these "war powers."
By
Libby Spencer, at 11:23 AM
That would be far easier to do of course but I've become so cynical regarding his intentions that I sincerely would not doubt that he would ignore congress and declare special emergency powers for himself.
By
Capt. Fogg, at 10:59 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home