For the very kind words, and for highlighting the dangerous breakdown in the balance of powers of our government, which has been so glaring of late. We see that breakdown in particular as we watch the now-normalized annual appropriation for whatever we are doing in Iraq being undemocratically, but carefully, pre-packaged and veto-proofed in secret by the Democrats in Congress - preparatory to its roll out to the voiceless caucus whose votes will be wittingly used to ensure the funding's passage into law, deceptive fig-leaf covering diversions notwithstanding.

Gene Healy's book sounds like exactly the sort of pushback that's desperately needed to restore the ignored, overlooked, suppressed Constitutional system that those who are in power, and in a position to do something about it, refuse to honor.

Louis Fisher spelled out what ought to transpire in Congress on matters of policy as grave as declaring war, and funding war - a process which conflicts so starkly with the methods of the political party hierarchies which now control our federal legislature and their party's votes, to the exclusion of the interests of the nation wherever they seriously conflict with the (perceived) interests of the party:

Second, the decision to take the country to war is set aside for each member of Congress, from the Speaker to the newly elected lawmaker. On a decision of that gravity, every member is equal. No member has rank or special power.

[snip]

Congressional leaders lack authority to imply or grant congressional support for a military operation. That decision is reserved to each member of Congress, including the most junior.

- Louis Fisher, Library of Congress

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/fis041008.htm

The media's deliberate disinformation and misinformation about the role of Congress is one reason why Representative Delahunt's hearing last month, and the testimony it solicited, was so welcome, refreshing and affirming, despite his "leadership's" apparent refusal to acknowledge it or their own power to do the people's will. [http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/sub_oversight.asp - see April 10's hearing in particular and Michael Glennon's proposed unilateral Congressional approach to ending the occupation of Iraq.] At least some former Congressional staffers know better; here's a recent commentary by a veteran of the House Foreign Affairs Committee staff concerning presidential abuse of power:

In 1952, President Truman, the first imperial president, seized the steel mills under his alleged "inherent power" as commander in chief -- supposedly to prevent paralysis of the national economy and using the rationale that soldiers in the Korean War needed weapons and ammunition.

.

By a wide margin, in the case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Supreme Court struck down Truman's executive order to seize the mills because it had no statutory or constitutional basis. Essentially, the court ruled that the president may be commander-in-chief of the armed forces but not the country.

[snip]

Finally, the Fourth Amendment (requiring warrants for any search) and the Fifth Amendment (the right to due legal process) contain no exceptions for wartime. In fact, in a republic -- where the rule of law should be king -- crises and wartime are exactly when people's rights are most likely to be endangered and when safeguards are especially needed.

Even more tragic and dangerous than the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan have been President Bush's usurping of power from the other two branches of government and the creation of the "hyperimperial" presidency.

- Ivan Eland

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2170

Because one thing that 9/11/01 didn't change is human nature, or the need to keep its governmental excesses in check.

We have, and have had for some time, pushed along by racist party agendas following the Civil War, a two-party-only straitjacket warping and perverting our federal legislature and ballot access to that legislature. We have Congressional "leaders" who lead - apparently without serious opposition or meaningful protest from within their caucus - a political party, rather than a legislature or a nation, and our representatives blindly follow their party leadership when told to do so, though often cut out of the debate, the decisions, and the power on the most momentous issues.

Note here that if I'm counting accurately, the "Blue Dog" coalition is in serious jeopardy of vanishing as an excuse for or threat to the Democratic majority next year. With 48 members, and given the current margin of the Democratic majority in the House, a net swing of only 7 seats from Republican to Democrat obliterates that 48-member bloc's ability to join with Republicans to defeat the Democratic caucus. As of today, there are 434 seated House members, of which 235 are Democrats and 199 are Republicans. To reach a 49 vote margin, safeguarding a Democratic majority even if every Blue Dog were to join the Republican Party (an impossibly unlikely scenario), it would take a net gain of only 13 Democratic seats this fall - which in turn means only seven Republicans have to be replaced by Democrats if Democrats hold all their seats (29 incumbent House Republicans are already known to be relinquishing their seats this year vs. 7 incumbent Democrats, to date). I'm sure the Blue Dogs (particularly the smaller number of "Bush Dogs") and the Democratic leadership are well aware of this fact, as we should be (no such "Bush Dog" excuse for war funding is likely to exist come next January, as one example, perhaps explaining the push to fund Iraq through next spring, now).

Unless and until Congress decides to self-confidently assert itself and to exercise its own inherent powers, the national commentary - eagerly egged on by the First Amendment-protected, private-interest-serving press - will continue to be a debate about which candidate for president is likely to be the most benevolent, strong, or wise czar for our nation - a debate about the qualities of one man, not as a chief executive faithfully and humbly carrying out the will of the people as expressed through their Congress but rather as our nation's all-powerful overlord.