Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Sigh

MANIFESTO

Excuse me, I think this is where I came in.

My frustration knows no bounds this morning as I find that, 35 years after the the US already did this,
[A] bipartisan commission will issue a report today urging greater collaboration [between the legislative and executive branches over when and how to go to war].

The National War Powers Commission, led by two former secretaries of state, will propose a new process of consultation between the executive and legislative branches, said Taylor Reveley, the group's co-director.

Reveley, interim president of the College of William and Mary, said the commission will urge future presidents to consult with members of Congress before deciding whether to use military force abroad.

... Tensions over war powers came to a boil most famously during the Vietnam war, when Congress enacted the War Powers Act of 1973 over President Nixon's veto. The act required the president to consult with Congress before using military force in certain circumstances.
Policy is apparently like fashion: Just stick around long enough and styles are sure to come back.

But the effort to effect a protocol that's (in best Lewis Black imitation) already in place shows just how subversive the Bushies have been. The so-called unitary executive theory of governance (autocracy in everything but name) as espoused by Yoo, Gonzales, Cheney, and the rest of the band of traitors in the executive branch is clearly illegal and unconstitutional. That a bipartisan commission has to issue a report pointing that out (Of course, it won't be stated in those terms; the usual groveling tone is sure to be evinced.) irks me beyond words.

Moreover, as in the Nixon days, the Bushies' illegal and unconstitutional actions have led to disastrous foreign and domestic outcomes: an unending, unnecessary, and ultimately unwinnable war; spying on American citizens; an environment that may never recover from the executive's excesses; and a recessionary economy.

To see all of this happening again, and to see a bipartisan commission trying again to make it right is almost unbearable.

(The New York Times has an op-ed piece on this issue this morning. Since it's written by Warren Christopher and James Baker—two Beltway insiders if ever there were any—it should be taken in the proper spirit.)

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

um, the War Powers ACT was actually a resolution. Much of the debate surrounding the reslution is actualy because it was never submitted to the president for veto or signature. Because of this, it cannot legally be considered a binding law.

Tuesday, July 08, 2008 2:52:00 PM  
Blogger monocle said...

anonymous--

Your comment is so ridiculous as to be beneath response. However, I will ask: You do know the difference between a bill and an act, right?

Wednesday, July 09, 2008 8:17:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home