when she proposes to obliterate Iran

Great question. Certainly, all REAL Americans would choose a Republic. The tendency toward Empire seems fundamentally Unconstitutional, according to that "piece of paper" in the Nat'l Archives. Despite those who say otherwise, a nation can look out for its own self-interest without picking fights with everyone around it. Just maintain a navy to protect our shipping and commerce, an air force to protect our skies, and a reasonable plan to draft and enlarge the army should we be threatened on land.

I think of Thomas Jefferson, who despite his writings against Federal (and sp. executive) power, knew enough not to let Louisiana pass by. Another way to think of the empire or republic question is a matter of being assertive vs. aggressive.

But what to do with all the violent maniacs in the Pentagon who won't stand for this? Those who are now addicted to the cause of the American Empire, and the police state required to support it? Could a moderate man ever be president again? Look at how hard they went after Bill Clinton toward the end of his term.

Pulling back and toning down the rhetoric of slavish worship of the military would drive these people nuts.

Then again, maybe they are fattened and satiated enough from gorging on defense contracts in Iraq that they are willing to take a breather?

I tend to favor amending the Constitution to much more strongly limit the Executive. One amendment should outline and limit so-called war powers so that there can never again be any quibbling over meaning or rolling out of the idiotic "I'm a war president!" To partially address this, I suggest we borrow from the Roman republic: during a war, the President is granted something only passingly resembling an "imperium", only without the dictatorial powers that the Roman grant of imperium granted. It would, upon a vote of the Senate, a grant the president strong Commander in Chief powers over the armed forces for a period of no longer than 2 years or the length of the war, whichever is shorter. At the end of a period of imperium, the President would have to seek a new vote if the war continues.

Of course, I would also take the Justice Department out of the hands of the President. S/he would still be the one to nominate heads of the department for the Senate to confirm but after those persons are seated, the President loses ALL control over their actions - the DOJ must operate truly independently of the President's desires. On the other hand, the department could be handed to the Judicial branch, leaving the President to pick the department heads but that's it. Anything to forever prevent any crap like BushCo has pulled with the department.

Actually, I would do the equivalent with ALL federal departments. The EPA? No longer under Presidential control. The President only gets to pick the head of the department with the advice and consent of the Senate, but after that, no hand at all in how it operates, which would be mandated to ignore politics and ONLY work based on peer-reviewed science for its regulation. Same with the Wildlife dept, the BLM, etc. No more sitting in the President's cabinet, under the thumb of the President - independently operating departments with a mandate to operate, with oversight of Congress, based on actual science and other peer-reviewed data.

The Presidency should be weak, as originally intended.

I'm not sure when he really lost it--MCA or Patriot Act--but during that MCA period I remember writing McCain a hot one via his senate website, and receiving a response. I either posted the response here (old site) or emailed it to GG. The jist of his response was that 1) we are at war and 2) his primary goal was to 'protect the nation'.

Given recent discussions here (and old ones too--we've been echoing this for ages), McCains letter back then perfectly exemplifies how war is used--not just by presidents, but by all sorts of people--as an excuse to ignore or undercut proper constitutional function.

That said, it still needs to be noted that at least McCain made some noise about torture at the time, even if it was empty noise. Many democratic senators made no noise at all--they were as silent as they were for the AUMF. The failure of the "opposition" at that time should not be forgotten.

That is why impeachment, even at this late date, even if there is no trial possible, is a kind of "hygiene" and a statement of what is permitted in a democracy. The President is not to be a king or dictator but someone who uses his or her powers to further the American enterprise and protect its citizens from the over-reaching of power. -- midnight04

Yeah, none of this stuff really matters until we hold an executive to account for their illegality. Impeachment should be the only thing being discussed. It should dominate the national discourse. Everything else is just hacking at the leaves.

McCain isn't worried. He feels very comfortable in spouting this nonsense because, if he wins and even if things don't go totally his way, he knows that he can say and/or try anything without fear of repercussions. We have yet to hold any of them to account. Nixon and Ford (Watergate), Reagan and Bush1 (Iran-Contra), Bush2 (every single thing he does). Until we do hold them accountable by impeachment, indictment, and imprisonment, we will continue to suffer. It may not happen with Obama but it will happen again.

Some people are just fine with that.. they say/think they aren't but if Obama is elected and is just the least bit better than these criminals, people will soon forget and the process will begin all over again. Count on it.

The stench of hypocrisy is thick on these swine. Where was McCain when the Supreme court essentially appointed Bush? Was that not the ultimate act of judicial activism?

McCain's complaint about how judges feel free to do what they want because they have life long appointments is perfect proof that he has no idea how important the principle of judicial independence is to democracy. The judicial system has some large flaws as the appointment of Buhs shows, but the alternative is dictatorship.

I am also gratified to see so many posters actually worried that the United States is descending into fascism. Just a few years ago prescient people who made that assertion were ridiculed. Today, it is a relatively uncontroversial position, and thank god for that, as we have to recognize the problem before we can solve it.

Having said that, the most pressing problem for America at the moment is the upcoming attack on Iran. This idea too was controversial a year ago, but recently the entirely mainstream and serious London Times is reporting on the plan to attack a number of targets inside Iran.

When this attack comes, there will be horrendous blowback. This blowback will be used to justify martial law and/or the suspension of the November elections, especially if it looks like Obama is going to win.