Bush and the Constitution

[BlueFire]

Well, seeing as I've been reading a bunch of articles about Bush and the Constitution lately, I wanted to get your opinion on the issue.

This article seems to sum up a lot of the "Bush is raping the Constitution" argument:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/opinion/23mon4.html

So what's your opinion: agree or disagree?

I'm not trying to start arguments or any of that...
I'm just trying to start a discussion. :P

[Dylflon]

Strongly agree.

[Professor S]

That article is so specious in its reasoning, and irresponsible in its omission of actual constitutional facts, that it borders on silly.

1) The article implies that President Bush thinks that he can just announce war against enemies as Commander in Chief. He has never stated he believes that and has never done so. Congress voted for and approved this war, a fact many of the Dems seem to forget considering many voted for it. Once the approval is made, then the power to run the war does lie with the President as he IS the Commander in Chief.

As for the "Bush lied and people died" argument, I hate the fact I even have to address this because its so misinformed. The world thought that Iraq had WMD's and Cinton even stated they did during his presidency. The vast majority of evidence suggested Iraq had WMD's and were going to use them. That was (somewhat) wrong. Being wrong does not equal a lie. Thats like saying that every time you miss a question on a test, you aren't incorrect, you are purposely misleading the test so that you can get an exact B+.

2) It is in Congress' power to fund or not to fund the war. Congress has absolutely no constitutional right, written or implied, to dictate war policy or time tables. None. Zero. Nada. If the congress wanted the war over, they simply would have voted to remove all funding for it, but Congress doesn't have the backbone to do it, because they realize what an idiotic move that would be, and that all the blood of the massacre that would follow us leaving would be on their hands. I think they'd rather have that blood be on President Bush's hands instead.

3) The author uses the term "imperial" as much as he accuses President Bush of using the term Commander in Chief. There is nothing imperial about what has happened in the decision to go to Iraq, to stay in Iraq or in how the government in Iraq has formed. Its not even going to be an American style democratic republic. Just because you repeat an accusatory word over and over doesn't make it true.

The Congress hs had ample opportunity to take action when it comes to this war, and take action that actually lies within their power, and they have failed to do so at every turn. Whether you agree or disagree with Bush, he is simply sticking to his principles and fighting for what he thinks is the right thing to do. He has not invoked any sort of "imperial" power over the Congress or his constituents.

Don't blame Bush because of Congresses failures. Blame Congress because they are inept and increasingly irrelevant, and for more than just the war issue. They've failed to pass anything of substance besides a minimum wage bill since the Democrats took over. Is that Bush's fault too?

Try blaming Bush for things he's actually done wrong, such as spending, immigration, national security and war management to name a few.

Imperial and unconstitutional? Hardly, and by making those accusations you simply take attention away legitimate criticisms.