In the New Presidency, part of the job description will be to make unilateral judgments about national security, dispatch American forces essentially at will and demand and receive funds for those committments. It is at least theoretically possible that this is what Americans could be persuaded is the best course of action for the country, however, taking such a course without a full and open debate would mean that the Constitution is no longer what defines the American experiment.

-- Diana Powe

It seems Ms Powe isn't aware that she's describing policy for the last half century. Every military action since WW2 has been commenced without Congressional approval, except those pursued by the Bush Presidents, I believe. That includes the Korean war, Vietnam War, Clinton's bombing of Bosnia and Iraq, etc. Meanwhile, for all the posturing about what the American people believe, Congress will not attempt a clearcut attempt to cut off funding. Why? Because they know it will fail.

All in all, it was a well written post, but completely irrelevant.

As I say, I understand why you do what you do. You have no choice. I don't condemn you for being stupid. You can't help it. It is not being judgmental to try to educate the ignorant.

-- Frankly, my dear, ...

Good heavens! You're going to be judgemental? Then I guess you are neither a good Christian, or a good "liberal". Good for nothing, it seems.

Let's walk through this.

The President does not have the right to ignore the American people on grounds that he knows what he is doing is right. That is for the people to decide, they've decided, he is ignoring them. His power is delegated to him by the people. It is not his, intrinsically.

Actually it is. He was elected President not once but twice. The Constitution is specific about his authority. That coupled with precedent outlines his latitude and scope of operations, not Senator Rudman. Regarding Congress, they voted to give him authority to use the military on a bi-partisan basis, with a Democrat Senate. The American people spoke through Congress and any dissenters to Congressional action "have no right to be right." That was your point, no?

if you believe that the AUMF gives him some sort of personal authority, then maybe you're right. Maybe Congress should repeal the AUMF. You know the guy better than I do, do you think that would make him listen?

It might, but he's stated that Congress has the right to defund the war. It is that action of Congress that is required to stop the war. That would be the people speaking, yes? Well it seems that Congress can't get it's act together enough to actually say, what you want them to say. So if you are relying on Congress to be the voice of the people, it is clear that the people are conflicted on what to do, which leaves the authorization intact. And... if you are going to rely on Rudman's concept, dissenters have no right, to be right. Clear enough? Any questions?

I think it incumbent on "shooter242" to explain why, when Congress has the power to declare wars, Congress should be assumed, absent any evidence or argument as to why this should be so, to have no powers to do the inverse.

Cheers,-- Arne Langsetmo

Well let's see. In a war one wins, loses, or draws. Winning is a function of the Commander in Chief. A draw requires a treaty, again the function of the executive to negotiate. Losing, well actually surrendering, isn't something the framers made provision for, as far as I know. I doubt Congress has that power ennumerated somewhere. Does that answer your question?

Arne, you never fail to demonstrate on a regular basis that you have been, are now, and always will be, a dick.

Lol. Are you insinuating that Democrat administrations don't have litmus tests? Of course they do. Grow up.

Could we think about picking a day--May Day, say, since we have already missed Patriot's Day--to just plain ignore Shooter242?

-- caiubi

I absolutely agree. I am fine with tossing the occasional observation into the mix and leaving it at that. Ordinarily, I could and do ignore to more inane responses, but for the past three days I've been holed up in a Wash. DC hotel trying to evade the noreaster and get in some golf. No luck yet though, and that leaves me looking for a distraction. And yes, you people are very entertaining.

The upside at the moment is that my windows overlook "K" St. and the sun is peeking out. Keep your fingers crossed.

P.S. to Sysprog.... Sure, Congress can vote verbiage to surrender all it likes, but getting it past a veto and public humiliation is another story altogether. Good luck with that, heh.

From the poll....

"This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone April 12-15, 2007, among a random national sample of 1,141 adults, including an oversample of African Americans, for a total of 206 black respondents."

Anybody care to guess the percentage of Democrats exceeding Republicans? Lord knows that won't be made public. But as Glenn has pointed out in other less complimentary survey situations, there is this poll finding....

85% of respondents believe that extraterrestrial civilizations are visiting the Earth

http://exopoliticsjournal.com/vol-2/vol-2-1-Survey.htm Heh.

Thanks to Scientician's example I have a better appreciation of how an oversample may be mathematically valid. I am certainly not a statistician, and since TNS remains opaque about their methodology I have to remain open to the idea that the results were indeed weighted back. I have to admit the possibility of being wrong.

That said, my veracity and integrity have been impugned by several here. I invite any and all to submit anything they think I lied about, and I will be happy to set them straight.