Of course the lying weasel has not responded. The letter is excellent, and clearly defines how the lying weasel is once again violating our Constitution.
This is what I expect of a representative. He took the time to do his job, even though he had his campaign to think about, yet our current front runners couldn't even get their asses back to D.C. to vote on the bill that included the Biden-Brownback amendment.
Oh, yeah, we're in for a remarkable change in Washington a year from now. I'm sure we will see some improvements if one of the Dems win, but definitely not if McCain wins, as I fear is a real possibility. I believe the plan has been carefully laid out, is in the process of implementation, and the deal is done. Our candidates are quickly disenfranchising independents, repugs, and even Dems with their bickering and lack of a clear message as to why we should elect them, while McCain, like the turtle in old fable, steadily plods his way to the finish line, and the hearts of moderate America.
sheesh...end of rant, and finally the original intent of my post.
Here's a bit of the press release issued on Thursday, Jan. 24, 2008:
I expect that your Administration is using the same Executive Branch definition of “security commitments” in the Declaration of Principles with Iraq as was used in the aforementioned 1992 report. Yet, General Lute’s comments suggest that the Administration will not seek Congressional authorization or even Congressional consultations in negotiating such a commitment. The Constitution and our past practice clearly require that the executive and legislative branches act together in order to provide a legitimate security commitment to another country.
At the core of this issue is, of course, the war power of Congress. A careful study of the Constitution and the intent of the framers as reflected, for example, in statements made at the Constitutional Convention, leave no doubt that, except for repelling sudden attacks on the United States, the Founding Fathers intended decisions to initiate either general or limited hostilities against foreign countries to be made by the Congress and not the Executive. The President is to direct and lead the Armed Forces and put them to any use specified by Congress.
Over the years Administrations that have taken a particularly expansive view of the presidential power to repel sudden attacks have encroached on this original understanding of the war power of Congress. This theory of executive power has frequently been justified on the basis of expediency and practical necessity in view of the nature of modern conflict. But no prior Administration has suggested that the Executive’s power in this area is unlimited or that it applies to ex ante agreements where there is ample time for Congress to participate. Moreover, in my view, the division of war powers specified in the Constitution is both compatible with modern warfare and essential to constitutional government.
A commitment that the United States will act to assist Iraq, potentially through the use of our Armed Forces in the event of an attack on Iraq, could effectively commit the nation to engage in hostilities. Such a commitment cannot be made by the Executive Branch on its own under our Constitution. Congress must participate in formulating, and ultimately authorizing, such a commitment. As stated in the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations that accompanied the National Commitments Resolution in 1969, “he means of a democracy are its ends; when we set aside democratic procedures in making our foreign policy, we are undermining the purpose of that policy.”
I expect that the Committee will review this issue in hearings next year, and look forward to close consultation with your Administration. In advance of such hearings, I would welcome a clarification from you on the scope of the agreement you are considering, and the specific security assurances and commitments that it might entail. I would also appreciate a definitive statement from you affirming that Congress must authorize or approve any “security commitments” the United States negotiates with Iraq.
Sincerely,
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Chairman
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=291041&
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
