The problem is every branch of the government has gotten way beyond its natural intent. The Judicial Branch was never intended to be the end-all-be-all on constitutionality of laws. Congress was never ended to be a backseat to the president, and the president was never intended to be able to go to war at whim. When you have this imbalance of power, and Republicans who do not understand that conservative means not spending as much, you create a bad economic situation.
The War in Iraq proves how non-conservative the ruling party is. The war is a billion - trillion dollar a year deficit. A true conservative would have waited and thought the risk vs. gain of the war in Iraq, and re-evaluate it every year that we are there. Since the deficit is continuous with it and there is next to no progress overall, a true conservative would bow out gracefully after spending maybe a year tapering themselves out of the region. Now, the region is so reliant upon us, that the second we leave, it'll collapse.
The Supreme courts only job is supposed to be interpreting the constitution. They were never supposed to create laws, ban anything, support anything, or anything of the sort.
It seems right now that congress is running the country. It doesn't help that there is a democratic majority right now either. They are the ones not doing what needs to be done to get this economic slow down to end. They are the ones preventing us from drilling for oil, denying our rights, and forcing ridiculous laws on us.
I agree that the ruling party right now is not conservative, but not because of the 'war'.
Yes the war costs a lot of money, but guess what? Right now you are paying less taxes than you were before Bush was elected AND the national deficits rate of growth has not changed.
And there HAS been undeniable progress in Iraq. The surge worked. Their government is taking hold, terrorism around the world has gone down 40% since the 'war' started, Saddam is out of power, 50 million people have been liberated, and the Iraqi citizens who left the country because of the war are beginning to go back.
So claiming the 'war' isn't going well so we should leave just doesn't work.
Also, if you are going to weigh the risk/reward of being in Iraq, you have to look at the consequences of pulling out, even if gradually over a year. The newly forming Iraqi military would be split by the 3 ethnic groups of Iraq leading to a civil war. The terrorist organizations that we have on the run would find a heck of a home base in the form of the entire country of Iraq. Leaving would be sure sign of weakness to countries like Iran, North Korea, etc. And we have a responsibility to our allies in the area. We have to show that if they need our help, we won't cut and run just because the liberals back home are protesting.
There is a lot of bad that would happen if we left before finishing the job. Not a whole lot of good would happen if we left either.
And true conservatives realize all this. That is why true conservatives do not want to leave Iraq until the job is finished.
And of course the region is reliant upon us. It has been since before the 'war' even started. If we spent one year there taking out Saddam and then leaving, it is not like the country would just pick itself up and do all the things needed to establish a working democracy. As soon as our foot was out the door, al'Queada's foot would be in the door, or Irans, or whoever else.
He needs the approval of congress, that's the whole point of our 3 part government to prevent abuses in power so no part of the government has to much power.
He got the approval of congress. The War Powers Resolution Act. It was not a police action, it is not a declaration of war, it is a specific action for the purposes of protecting the United States. It is also very limiting in what it allows the president to do.
And just FYI, the constitution does not limit in anyway the power of the president to go to war. It simply states that congress has the sole power to declare war. If you really look at the wording, what is that saying? 'declare war'. It just means that congress has the sole power to acknowledge that the country is at war. Just as the president can 'declare' someplace a disaster area. That doesn't mean it wasn't a disaster area before he got there.
Make war and 'declare' war are two different things. It would have been very sloppy of the founding fathers to make that mistake. A declaration of war is what suddenly gives the president more power than what he had before, giving him freedoms and responsibilities used for all out war, such as what the president could do during WW2.
This 'war' in Iraq is NOT war. It is an action for the purposes of protecting the country. No declaration of war is needed.
Under the constitution the president has the power to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" and Article VI affirms that treaties are part of the "supreme law of the land."
When Congress overwhelmingly approved the 1945 U.N. Participation Act (UNPA), the unanimous House report explained that the ratification of the U.N. Charter "resulted in the vesting in the executive branch of the power and obligation to fulfill the commitments assumed by the United States thereunder." Quoting the unanimous Senate report urging charter ratification, the House report added that the use of U.S. armed forces to enforce the charter "would not be an act of war but would be international action for the preservation of the peace," and thus "the provisions of the charter do not affect the exclusive power of the Congress to declare war."
Even without the 1945 UN Participation Act, the wording of the constitution gives the president power to use the military to enforce laws, enforce treaties, and take action against threats to the US or the ideas of the constitution.
By now you may be asking where the checks and balances are in this situation? We all know the founding fathers were all about checks and balances.
The balance is that Congress funds the military. The president is the commander in chief, but without the funds from congress, he can't do anything. If congress really wants Bush to stop what he is doing in Iraq, all they have to do is cut funding. It is specifically written in the constitution that Congress alone funds the military.
